early childhood education

Budget 2024: These early childhood educators love kids. But love won’t pay the bills

This is the second in a series of posts on the 2024 Budget. Today: early childhood care and education by the University of New England’s Marg Rogers, postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute. Yesterday: school funding by Curtin University’s Matthew P. Sinclair, a lecturer in education policy. Monday: higher education by the University of Melbourne’s Abigail Payne, director of the Melbourne Institute.

The 2024 Federal Budget has included new and continuing early childhood initiatives to support educators and relieve the workforce crisis. That said, there are no rainbows or new pots of gold in easy reach for educators. Here’s what is new, and what remains the same.

New: Paid practicum placements (from July 2024)

Educators are eligible for a payment of $319.50 a week for practicum placements outside of their own workplace. Educators have to do many practicums as they work through certificate, diploma and degree qualifications. In this past this has led to educators taking annual leave from their job to do their placement, or worse, unpaid hours creating ‘prac poverty’.

New: Lower indexation rates for HECS-HELP student debts (retrospective adjustment from 2023)

Rather than rely on the rate of inflation to set the indexation amount on student loans, the Government will now rely on lower and more predictable figures. The indexation rate, (similar to interest), will be either the Wage Price Index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower on any given year. 

This initiative will bring relief to early childhood educators who are trained, or training to be degree qualified and have a HECS-HELP student loan. Educators are often especially affected as they generally take longer to pay these debts off because:

  • they have low wages, so the rate of compulsory repayments is lower;
  • as 92% of the workforce are women, they are often taking career breaks to be the primary carers of children and relatives; and
  • they often work part time due to their caring responsibilities, meaning there are often years where they pay little to none of the debt.

These debts often fester for years, increasing educators’ levels of poverty, and reducing their ability to apply for a home loan. Thus, HECS-HELP schemes are an outdated and very sexist policy designed in the 1980s, largely by men who had little understanding of the impact it would have on women.

Continuation: Wage increases (when the Fair Work Commission completes its processes)

Probably the most disappointing part of the budget for educators is there is no increase in wages until the Fair Work Commission has completed its Annual Wage Review and Gender Pay Equity Research exercise. 

While this is important work, it will not help educators in the middle of a cost of living crisis who are leaving their jobs because they can’t afford to stay. It is important to note here that degree qualified early childhood educators receive about 20% less than school teachers with the same qualifications. 

That said, the Government has committed $30 million over 2024-25 to the processes of paying educators more once the decision is finalised. 

Continuation: Incentive System payments (2024-25)

Apprentices, trainees and employees benefit from Phase II of the Incentive System for priority skill areas, such as early education. In the second phase, educators on a traineeship could receive between $3000-5000 as a bonus over the two years. Additionally, sign on incentives payments of $4000-5000 are available for early childhood services to attract staff. 

This might help to attract some new educators in a time of high employment. This bonus is especially needed in regional, rural and remote regions, and low-income metropolitan suburbs who live in ‘childcare deserts’. This is where three or more families are competing for one space within a service. In some areas, it is 20 or more families, with parents waiting for many years to access early learning for their child. 

General initiatives: New supports impacting early childhood educators

As part of the general taxpaying population, educators will benefit from the stage 3 tax reforms. It will improve their take-home pay as they earn less than $146,000. Additionally, because 92% of the workforce in early education are women, some will be eligible for these new measures, depending on their circumstances. These include:

  1. domestic violence payment of $5000 for those fleeing an abusive relationship (continuation of a pre-existing scheme);
  2. improved funding in crisis and transitional accommodation (new funding); and 
  3. superannuation added to Commonwealth paid parent leave (from 2025). 

The verdict

In some ways, this is a disappointing budget for educators. Their wages have been effectively reduced from low to unsustainable during a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis. This will mean more educators will leave, if they cannot wait for the lengthy Fair Work Commission’s processes. 

Many have already left. They are enjoying higher wages in other sectors, such as the Aged Care Sector, whose wages were adjusted previously.

This high level of attrition negatively impacts:

  1. children (who need secure, caring relationships to support their learning, and access to important developmental screening);
  2. parents (especially women, who cannot work when they have no access to early learning);
  3. family wellbeing (reduced family income increases household stress);
  4. communities (who are losing young families when they cannot access early learning, and who cannot attract workers from other sectors to the area), and 
  5. the economy (as there are less taxpayers when parents cannot access early education for their children). 

Unfortunately, passion for children’s education does not pay the bills and provide a sustainable economic wage. We need real reform in early childhood education so our children, parents, families, communities and country thrive.

Dr Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at UNE and a postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute.

Flowers, chocolates, promises: now too late for early childhood educators

The newest Productivity Commission report: A path to universal early childhood education and care glosses over or ignores many fundamental problems within the early childhood education sector .

Scarcely mentioned, or tactfully ignored, are the:
* systemic issues relating to educator burnout,
* poor wellbeing and morale of educators,
* increasing burden of quality assurance,
* emotional cost of caring, and the
* increasingly complex needs of families.

These are crucial challenges creating chaos in the sector as educators head for the door in droves since before the pandemic. This alone is impacting families and the ability of Australian parents to work.

Neglect and abuse

After successive government neglect (poor pay and status) and abuse (overwork, underpay and unpaid hours) of educators over the years, suddenly the sector is getting attention. However, as this report shows, the Commission’s attention is on the wellbeing of the children and families. 

While families need attention and are very deserving, there still seems to be a reluctance to talk about educator wellbeing. When educators are mentioned, it is about how to attract more, rather than real solutions on how to nurture and retain those who have had enough.

An early childhood sector in chaos

The Commission does report on the vacancy rate which is over 5000 (over 4.5%), but this does not
show the number of services that have given up advertising. Many have simply closed down or
reduced the number of rooms they have open.

Many are operating under waivers, meaning they are being staffed by those who are currently
studying to meet the mandated requirements of the service. Studying can be difficult when an
educator’s service is short staffed.

The report does explain that in ‘childcare desert’ areas, that is, where the need for early learning is
greatest, children and families are spending years on waiting lists to access any care they can find.

The Parenthood’s ‘Choiceless’ report about effect of a lack of early learning in regional, rural and remote (RRR) communities shows, this is impacting the:
* mental health and wellbeing of parents
* access to screening services for children
* economic stability of households
* safety of children as they are taken to work with parents,
* viability of rural businesses and communities, and
* viability of families living in RRR communities.
In these communities, educators’ role in providing a link to services and supporting parents in their
role is vital because access to other services is severely limited. Educators in these areas need more support, because they are often providing more than early learning. They often undertake family support and mental health support roles with the families.

Supporting early childhood educator wellbeing

Educators need an investment in their wellbeing. They need access to funded wellbeing programs,
peer support and/or counselling programs. These should be conducted during work hours, otherwise it is only increasing their unpaid hours.

Pandemic stresses

The draft skims over the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector, which fared poorly compared to the school sector. The services were: told to stay open, roll out wave after wave of new health care policies, enforce new rules about attendance, required to do additional cleaning with no extra funds or hours. It was as though educators were on a ghost train ride to ‘burnout central’.

Additionally, they were labelled as essential workers, but were not given priority for vaccinations, nor given any recognition. The educational leaders showed great innovation in implementing a range of new ways of working, many which have remained in a post-COVID era.

The report also highlights the benefits of investing in the sector to free up parents to work and
increase the access children have to early learning. The report also highlights the overwhelming amount of data available on the sector. They fail to mention how this is collected, often by overworked educators who are trying to collect government data whilst educating and caring for children.

This has led to a ‘datification’ of the sector. It is a constant source of complaints as educators want to work with the children and families. Ironically, the report says there are gaps in the data! Many educators give up trying to complete data collection done while they are on the floor and do the work for free when they are at home. This is appalling given they are the 13 th lowest paid workers in Australia. So, in other industries where no qualifications are needed, workers can earn far more (e.g. in shops, manufacturing, farming and construction).

What the report gets right

The draft report outlines the dire need to remove unpaid practicums for educators because this leads to higher levels of attrition and poverty among educators. Many state governments are offering scholarships to remove university fees, which is encouraging. The report also discusses a range of improvements to assist families to access childcare three days per week, by removing the activity test.

Too little! Too late!

Whilst the politicians are quick to report on their moves in the right direction, the flowers, chocolates and promises have come far too late for many educators who cannot afford to stay in the industry any longer. Many educators can only afford to do the job they love if their partner earns far more, or their parents provide support. In the era of the #MeToo movement, the feminised workforce has had enough of neglect, poverty, being ignored, undervalued, demoralised and abused. They are saying ‘too little, too late’!

Dr Marg Rogers is a Senior Lecturer in the Early Childhood Education. Marg researches marginalised voices within families and education especially in regional, rural and remote communities. Specifically, she researches ways to support the wellbeing of military, first responder and remote worker families and early childhood educators. Marg is a Postdoctoral Fellow within the Commonwealth Funded Manna Institute.

Margaret Sims is a Professor in Early Childhood Education and Care and has worked in the areas of family support and disabilities for many years. She researches in the areas of professionalism in early childhood and higher education, families, disabilities, social justice and families from CaLD backgrounds. She is an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University.

What happens when we cut corners: Suffer the little children

Jack Swindells is why regulations for early childhood care matter.

The early childhood sector is regulated by standards and laws for a reason. One of those reasons is to ensure the quality of care for children: a quality of care that provides children with the opportunity to develop in an environment that is safe.

These regulations protect children from harm, harm such as the shocking incident concerning Jack Swindells, reported by the ABC this week in their investigation into the number of early childhood centres that do not meet national standards (17 per cent). This investigation speaks to the crisis in the sector and one that our research at the University of Sydney has been hearing about from educators.

Their greatest concerns included the child to teacher ratios and the lack of supervision:

Educator to child ratios – we do not have enough time in the day to support each child to their full potential and respond to challenges in adequate and effective ways. This makes it difficult to assist the development of children and to spend equal time with each child.

Educators are underpaid, badly treated by some centres and families, deal with the very best and worst of caring for large groups of children, put themselves at risk of illness, injury and mental illness, and still many maintain such a love of being an educator. I can’t think of a better word than resilient.

Leadership at my service is in crisis due to the demands of the job; I work with a minimum ratio of 1:11 in my preschool, making it very difficult to cater for all children and do anything “extra”; we have no or very little time out of the classroom to plan, reflect and do admin.

An article in the Australian Financial Review in July suggested “Staffing and education rules at childcare centres contribute to costs that make it harder for mothers to return to the workforce”.

Would loosening the regulations in the early childhood sector make childcare more affordable? Is this the answer to the crisis in the field?

We asked educators what they thought about their profession. Remember these aren’t the people who own the childcare centres, they are the glue holding these centres together. They are already one of the lowest paid professions in the country. These propositions are hardly new – the idea to reduce the ratios has been raised in the media in the UK and the US

And why haven’t these ideas been warmly embraced? There is  overwhelming evidence which supports the benefits of quality early childhood education and care for children. The professional knowledge and experience of educators is essential for this quality.

The article lacks awareness of the physical, relational work, not to mention the professional knowledge required for “quality” education and care of infants and young children. 

It is this lack of appreciation that impacts the profession and resonates with how educators see themselves portrayed in the media and viewed by society overall. Early childhood education is not just a place for children that allows their mothers to go to work. 

The educators I work with are highly effective and always have the best interests at heart. They are paid a pittance and their work as professionals is constantly undermined by policy, media etc. As a degree qualified ECT, I am not paid equal pay for the same work my government employed teachers are paid.

We are STILL seen as babysitters no matter how much the sector wants to push that we aren’t.

After listening to the educators in our research, of their resilience and dedication to the care of young children, the suggestion to reduce ratios is one guaranteed to add further pressure to one of the lowest paid professions in the country. It will only contribute to the number of staff departing the workforce, and the loss of significant experience and knowledge. Lowering the numbers of educators diminishes the quality and quantity of time adults have with children.

One participant in the research wrote: “I believe that we can shape the lives of young people and their families. We can help to shape their views about children’s lifelong education and influence their Iives and the way they grow into young people.”

The role of our educators is far beyond the actions involved with babysitting and includes every breathing moment that professionals are with young children, from the moment the infant is transferred from their primary caregivers’ arms into their own, for every diaper change, feeding time, in soothing, singing, playing and response to the child. It requires a complete physical and social investment by adults.

This is what quality care looks like. The difference between holding a baby and holding a baby in the position that is comfortable to them, the difference between singing a song to them and singing the song they are  sung to at home, in the language they hear at home. It is this difference that explains why infants indicate a preference for one educator at a preschool over another.  I was reminded of this when visiting Lily * (a second-year student on her professional experience). She was attempting to console a 9-month-old infant, tears running down her cheeks. As I approached them, sitting on the floor in a large play area, I asked if I was the cause, as sometimes children will be afraid of unfamiliar people. No, Lily shook her head, this baby was crying for her favorite caregiver, she could see her in the toddler room next door as she had been moved to cover staff shortages, an unavoidable change in the daily routine that is upsetting to children, families and staff and limits the opportunities for:

Enjoying simple everyday pleasures together such as engaging in and admiring nature and weather, sharing stories and ideas.

The simple pleasures that build the relationships essential for infants to transition from being dependent to independent and to become trusting in their own ability and to trust in others. This happens when educators create play-based learning experiences that evolve from the children’s curiosity and expand their abilities. To do this, educators need to know the children. 

The suggestion to reduce ratios also ignores the views of educators, as does the idea of reducing qualifications. In both phases of our study, educators described the value of professional knowledge for the children and themselves, of their desire to further their professional learning and the learning of colleagues. One teacher highlighted the need for more:  

Time to adequately support and mentor other educators and feeling like they need more education to lift standards.

Another teacher taking her master’s degree in special education said:

I believe that the best educators are the ones who invest themselves physically and emotionally in their work. We can’t teach children to establish strong relationships without modelling/feeling strong relationships.

Reducing ratios means educators, like so many in our study are constantly doing two things at once, cleaning or changing nappies and supervising:

Managing the room safely during times when staff are still “in ratio” but not actively caring for most of the children in the room (think nappy changes, doing journals/charts, managing children who need one-on-one care etc), transitioning the under 2s up and down stairs during family grouping, and being out of ratio in the mornings.

It is scenarios like this that lead to children like Jack getting hurt.

Educators know what is needed to support their work and their working environment. Policy is needed that creates time and space for professionals to be with children. We will not arrive at that by reducing the qualifications or the staff. Our professionals are telling us what they need. We should listen.

Olivia Karaolis teaches across the School of Education and Social Work at Sydney University. She completed her research at USYD after working in the United States in the field of Early Childhood Education and Special Education. Her focus has been on creating inclusive communities through the framework of the creative arts.

How this oppressive test is killing the magic of childhood

NAPLAN is taking the fun out of early childhood learning. Early childhood learning encompasses education for children from birth to eight years of age and it is widely known that play-based programs planned with intentionality are the best way for teachers to engage young children in learning. Unfortunately, a focus on NAPLAN scores has resulted in many schools paying more attention to literacy and numeracy programs for children in primary school to perform better in tests in Years 3 and 5. This is impacting on the learning engagement of children in the earlier years. 

Research over decades has shown that play is how young children learn. Through interacting with their environment and their peers, children are making sense of the world and their place in it. These ideals are reflected in the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia that sets out what children aged up to five should be engaging with: “Play-based learning with intentionality can expand children’s thinking and enhance their desire to know and to learn, promoting positive dispositions towards learning” (p.21). The Early Years Learning Framework document applies for all children in the early years of school across Australia, yet the focus on Literacy and Numeracy is narrowing the curriculum and taking away the opportunities for children and teachers to engage in play-based learning.

Although NAPLAN does not happen until Year 3, when children are about 8 years old, it has been identified that teachers in the lower grades are being asked to teach Literacy and Numeracy in more formal ways. The concentrated focus on these two subject areas has led to an increase in the use of whole school commercial programs, some of which are specifically scripted. This practice reduces the autonomy of teachers to make decisions about their teaching based not only on their training but their knowledge of the children in their class. This raises concerns for the teacher and their practice, as well as the engagement of the children through more formalised learning practices earlier in their school experience.

With the publishing of results on the MySchool website and other unintended consequences of the standardised tests, including principal’s performance in some states being measured by these results, NAPLAN has become high stakes. For school leaders, there is pressure to do well, and this is being transferred to teachers and sometimes children and their families which may negatively impact on wellbeing. Even in schools where children traditionally perform well and there are programs focusing on wellbeing, some children are still feeling stressed about doing the tests and what the results will mean for them. This pressure is leading to children doing more formalised learning in literacy and numeracy from an earlier age and ‘play’ is often relegated to Friday afternoons if all other tasks are completed.

Play, or more specifically play-based learning, is often misunderstood within education, despite the evidence of its value. Play is often situated at one end of a continuum with learning at the other when in fact, intentional teachers can implement programs across this continuum to engage children in learning across multiple and integrated subject areas. When children are enjoying their learning through the play, they are often unaware that they are learning science, mathematics, and engineering in the block corner; or geography, history, and science when they are exploring gardening, including investigating how it was done by their grandparents.

Teachers who do not understand play and play-based learning approaches may be uncomfortable with the reduced control that comes through children learning in this way. Research conducted in both the science and technology domains, however, have shown that children often are more engaged and learn more than expected when they are interested in the learning and it is happening in a way that is authentic to their experience. Not only are the children in these research projects learning specific content, but they are also learning Literacy and Numeracy when they plan explorations, calculate results, represent findings, and use technology to create, research, record and share information. The multi-modal options that play facilitates, ensures that all children can feel a sense of accomplishment and can learn from their peers as well as their teacher.

Children do need to be literate and numerate, but NAPLAN scores are not showing improvement despite the increased focus on these two specific learning areas over recent years. At the same time, children are becoming increasingly anxious and disengaged from school from an earlier age. Research in early childhood continues to identify that children engage with and learn through play-based approaches, and through the intentionality of the planning, teachers have autonomy over their programs to suit the needs of the children in their classroom. Perhaps it is time that the fun is brought back to classrooms, not only for children under five but for all children in schools, so that they can engage and enjoy their learning. Engaged children may be less likely to resort to negative behaviour to gain attention, and a reduction in the use of prescribed programs and a little more fun may also help teachers feel valued for their knowledge and expertise. The potential is there for broader approaches and happier children and teachers through increased fun, perhaps helping to bring some teachers back to the workforce – a win all around!

Pauline is a senior lecturer in the Early Childhood program at ECU. Her teaching and research are focused on a range of issues in early childhood education including assessment, curriculum, workforce and reflective practice.

The government must fix the childcare desert now

Marg Rogers, Navjot Bhullar and Laura K Doan ask: How far will the Budget’s funds stretch to fix educator professional development and ‘childcare desert’ communities?

The Federal Government’s Budget announcement of $18 million of funding to be available as grants for providers is welcome. Providers will be able to apply for up to $900,000 to build more services in ‘childcare desert’ areas. These are normally in regional, rural and remote areas, and exacerbate disadvantage because children in the area miss out on early learning, and their parents miss out on working. However, this is not going to go very far since the problem is so great.

The Government has promised to support 6000 existing educators to upskill and support them to backfill positions that are vacant. It has also pledged $72.4 million over 5 years to support up to 75,000 educators’ professional development for those in regional and remote communities is welcome. 

Educators in these areas often act as more than educators, and face increased pressures. They often plug the gaps for other services that are missing in these communities, such as mental health services, family support and early intervention. Sometimes they are unable to attend further professional development because they do not have the casual staff to cover their teaching load.

Throughout the sector, many early childhood services are scrambling to run effectively. The sector has chronic staff shortages and high levels of burnout.

This has led to alarming rates of staff absenteeism due to increased workload and stress. The impact of this level of disruption and stress on children’s wellbeing and learning is still unfolding.

Despite welcome reforms to reduce the cost of early childhood education for families, staff shortages have increased during COVID as educator burnout has increased. Currently, there are over 6800 advertised positions for educators in Australia, double since the pandemic began. So, how did we get into such a mess?

To find out more about the challenges educators face, our international study explored educators’ work in five different countries. We also wanted to learn from other countries to improve policies and practices.

Australian educators’ experiences

In Australia, 51 surveyed educators told us about their experiences working in a sector in crisis. Additional data were collected from publicly available forums related to the publication of these findings. Predictably, most roads lead to gender

Women make up 92% of this workforce. As part of the feminised care sector, it features: 

financial abuse

“Educators were pushed to provide high quality … with minimal budget. I spent over $4,000 of my own money – not one cent reimbursed”.

“Book week, pirate day, Halloween – …centres force this onto staff. They want photo ops to market themselves on Facebook but expect staff to pay for …costumes. Unpaid overtime setting the rooms up”.

–extremely low pay

“One day I found one of them (educators) crying in the other room… she told me …she works double shifts and so tired but gets paid #%!@ all”.

low status

“Traditionally ‘women’s work’ so it’s undervalued”.

“Quality education begins with quality educators…(who) are valued”.

invisibility

“There is a lot of pressure on educators to meet the needs of others resulting in their own health being overlooked”.

-never being good enough

Early childhood teacher’s and educator’s… qualifications are far less valued”.

unpaid hours

“Too much work ‘from the love of your heart’”.

-chronic overwork

“So stressful due to the admin and recording”.

“Obscene documentation requirement from the government”.

-high stress

“It can be stressful to try and achieve all the goals and outcomes … in these frameworks”.

“All of us have stressful days… managing behavioural issues, parent’s demands and a lot of routine tasks”.

-poor staff morale

“Very low, strained and tired”.

-forced to conform to others’ ideals

“Educators … are … pressured to conform early education to one box”.

What could we learn from Canada?

Clearly, our highly privatised Australian system needs urgent reform. In the meantime, to support educators’ wellbeing, we might be able to learn from other countries.

Up to 50% of educators in British Columbia were leaving the sector in their first five years. To address this, an evaluated, funded peer support program is nurturing the wellbeing of educators. Unsurprisingly, this is reducing attrition.

Potentially, this research-based Peer Mentoring Program (PMP) could be adapted for Australia. It involves peer-mentoring within Community of Practice (CoP) groups.

Why is it so effective?

The program works because it:

-Gives educators a voice

The groups create a safe space for educators to discuss their professional and private lives without judgement or recrimination. An educator in the program said:

“It’s creating a safe place for vulnerability”.

-Supports educator health and wellbeing (self-care)

This is a major focus for the individual groups as educators explore ways to sustain their practice.  

“Our time together ‘filled my cup’, each sip of tea warming my insides … I felt refreshed mentally”.

-Creates a nurturing, connected community

The groups build a sense of belonging with like minded individuals, with mentoring from experienced educators. 

“I would describe the PMP program as going home, being with a group of people who … allow you to be the best version of yourself…”.

-Addresses invisibility

The program focuses on educators’ needs, not the needs of children and families.

“I’m educated … experienced … fulltime … as a woman, why is it okay that I’m at poverty level”?

“We have nothing to give if our OWN cups are empty”.

Post-pandemic bread and butter budget

So, how do we convince governments to fund such a program?

Now, Australian governments and early childhood services are spending a lot to attract, train and induct educators. Some of this money could be better spent supporting the wellbeing of educators in our existing workforce so we can retain them.

What Australia needs to change to keep educators

To reform the sector, Australians and our Government need to take a long hard look at the following: 

Do we value young children’s education and care during the critical first five years? Do we value those in the feminised care sectors enough to give them a fair go? If so, let’s address this crisis by making the necessary policy reforms to nurture, value and keep our educators. The 2023 Budget only partially addresses this.

Dr Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at the University of New England. Professor Navjot Bhullar is a research-focused professor of Psychology (wellbeing focus) at Edith Cowan University. She is in the top 250 most cited researchers in Australia. Associate Professor Laura K. Doan is an associate professor of early childhood at Thompson Rivers University in Canada.

Header image from Anne Aly’s Facebook page

Provoking the children: why that matters for remarkable early learning

Our research shows why play matters in supporting young children’s learning and development. We have so many resources and materials within early childhood education but it is the way in which these resources are shared with children which impacts their capacity to learn through play. 

Poorly resourced learning environments lack variety and stimulation, while excessively resourced spaces can be overwhelming and distracting, resulting in a lack of concentration skills. When presented using thoughtful and engaging approaches, early childhood resources can maximise children’s learning and development and help them achieve their full potential. One way of presenting purposeful and effective play opportunities is through the creation and delivery of a learning provocation.

Intellectual exploration through a variety of means is a key principle of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. 

This is where the idea of learning through engagement in a ‘provocation’ has blossomed. When considering the philosophies of Reggio Emilia, the learning environment becomes ‘the third educator’ and strongly contributes towards children’s play and engagement. Learning provocations form a foundational aspect of educating children through their environment.

Put simply, provocations provoke children’s interests, imagination and engagement. They motivate thinking and investigation. Resources are arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way, sparking children’s interest and inviting them to engage and explore. For example, soft fabrics form the base or backdrop, with resources arranged in bowls or baskets that children can easily view and access. Books that accompany the provocation theme add a layer of intrigue, mirrors or pictures in frames catch the children’s eye and encourage them to take a closer look. 

Different from a learning invitation, which often has a desired outcome, provocations are open-ended and are designed to stimulate children’s ideas, imagination and creative thinking. A crucial characteristic is that they have multiple entry and exit points, meaning that children can engage with the resources within a provocation several times and produce a range of outcomes.  For example, an invitation might ask children to sequence or order a set of pictures to retell the story of Goldilocks and the three bears – one correct answer and it’s the same each time. A provocation might involve a roleplay or small-world figures of Goldilocks and the bears where children could act out the story using accompanying props and the storybook to guide their sociodramatic play. 

The role of the educator is pivotal in providing appropriate and thoughtful provocations that meet children’s learning and developmental needs and connect to curriculum outcomes. Deliberate and considered decisions need to be made based on a sound understanding of the child, their interests, what is age and developmentally appropriate, and the types of experiences to offer that will continually encourage exploration. The best outcomes for children happen when educators provide experiences that meet children’s learning needs within their Zone of Proximal Development with knowledge that is built on careful observation of the child. 

The Zone of Proximal Development is defined as the space between what a child can do without assistance and what they can do with adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers.

The understanding that a child-focused learning environment encourages the child to actively explore and learn about the world themselves, rather than the educator overtly guiding and leading the child’s learning, is also critical to effective provision. 

Provocations encourage children to form their own conclusions about the world around them, rather than being told by someone else. Once children are engaging with a provocation, educators need to consider their role in supporting learning. This might involve making decisions as to when to step in and out of children’s play, when to adjust or add to the provocation, when to engage in conversation, build vocabulary or demonstrate how particular resources might be used.

Creating a provocation allows educators to be creative as they consider how best to gather a range of learning tools in a way that will spark interest and inspire engagement. Sourcing materials does not need to be an expensive task. Natural and recycled elements can be just as engaging as purchased equipment and they possess soothing elements that help to promote a peaceful space. Promoting spaces where children feel emotionally and physically at ease helps to develop a sense of belonging which optimises learning. 

Good provocations will reflect an element of care that always accompanies early childhood education. Responding to a child’s interest through a provocation might include pictures, photographs, light and/or mirrors. Worksheets and colouring-in pictures offer limited, structured outcomes and form more of a teacher-led invitation than a provocation. Providing ways for children to communicate their thinking through drawing and other arts-based practices, enables them to make meaning of new-found knowledge and understanding in more agentic ways. Literature and picture books offer opportunities to expand children’s imagination, vocabulary and knowledge of print.

There are no specific limits to the size of a provocation. Some may involve a small collection of items in a basket that help to develop a schema that a baby has demonstrated an interest in, whilst others may be large provocations using loose parts in the outdoor yard or sandpit where children demonstrate an interest in construction. Careful positioning of resources and not over cluttering the space sends the message that resources are valuable and important. Whilst provocations are often limited to prior to school settings, there is no reason as to why they cannot work with school-aged children, adjusting resources to be age appropriate and providing opportunities for further engagement with curriculum content within the classroom.

In an effective play-based learning environment, provocations are one approach used within a suite of pedagogical practices where educators can see the extraordinary in the ordinary and help children to do the same. Effective provocations should be a reflection of the child, extend learning and development, continually encourage exploration, and position the child in a space where they can be guided to calmly work and learn through play.

Rachael Hedger is a Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education and Course Coordinator for the Early Childhood Initial Teacher Education degrees at Flinders University, South Australia. She is a PhD candidate at Deakin University. Her PhD explores how arts-based practices can support children’s science learning. Her research interests focus on how drawing can be used as a vehicle for exploring science concepts, focussing on process and exploration. She is a supporter of learning through play pedagogies and encouraging pre-service teachers to be advocates for young children’s learning.

ECEC: Why joy at work is wonderful (but never enough)

Image courtesy of Joanna Crothers

Educators voted on Wednesday to take strike action on September 7 – Early Childhood Educators Day – to highlight the issues and stress that workers within the sector have been experiencing after “more than a decade of inaction”.The Guardian

The field of early childhood is currently facing a series of crises, including staff shortages, centre closures and unprecedented low levels of morale within and across the profession. None of these concerns is new! Although exacerbated by the global pandemic, the chronic challenges to providing quality early childhood care are complicated by funding, privatisation, ever increasing administrative demands placed on educators, poor working conditions, low salaries, and overall lack of recognition for the importance of the profession. 

Such issues have dominated the discussion of early childhood in the media, portraying an image of a field inundated with problems and at risk of being overwhelmed by them entirely. Together with my colleague at the University of Sydney, Dr. Cathy Little, we undertook a study that sought to hear the perspectives of this situation from the educators themselves, not just of the issues outlined above, but also of the field itself. The representation in the media seemed incomplete, too focused on the problems that beleaguered the sector rather than understanding the deeper issues at stake. We wanted to focus on what was also good, sustaining and valued in and by the profession. One of the emergent key findings, despite all the current challenges, was surprising. It was joy! This article discusses the notion of joy articulated by early childhood educators, its presence in early childhood programs and how it represents a way forward for the recognition and value of the profession in our society.

Defining Joy

C. S. Lewis understood. Joy comes to us, unexpected. A presence that we can neither manufacture nor control. Joy arrives and with it a fulfillment that is beyond the scope of pleasure or happiness and unlike those feelings, beyond our control. We may experience joy or hope that joy is waiting for us, however it cannot be manufactured, nor is its presence assured.

“Joy bursts in our lives when we go about doing the good at hand and not trying to manipulate things and times to achieve joy.”

CS Lewis

We mention C. S Lewis and his idea of joy as it resonates with the views expressed by the early childhood educators in this study.  A consistent definition of joy echoed through our research findings, one that connected with feelings of happiness or pleasure yet moved beyond these to a “Delight in everything I do”, “A feeling of lightness and emotional fullness”, “Serenity and peacefulness” and an “Overwhelming feeling of happiness that comes from within”.  Educators noted that joy “burst” into their lives as they went about their work with children. Joy sustains them, makes the work they do worthwhile and of inestimable professional and personal value. Joy is an occupational hazard.

Finding Joy

In listening to early childhood educators, we learned that the source of their joy was found in relationships, experienced always with children, families, and colleagues. They described this joy in the day-to-day interactions with children, the quieter moments or as one educator wrote, “certain times when I make a strong connection with a child or build on my working relationships with my colleagues”. Others found it by, “Being in the moment with the children” or “Being with children” and “When the children are interacting with me”. They spoke of the joy discovered when observing children, “Deeply engaged in doing something they enjoy” and about “Having fun, singing, dancing, meditating, doing yoga. Engaging in conversations with the children. Playing with the children” and the “Daily joy… from the moment I enter the gate… to children cheering my name blowing kisses”. 

Joy was seen as present in the wider relationships that surrounded the early childhood centre. The relationships with families of “Interacting with the children/educators/families. Sharing the children’s and educators’ achievements and learning” and “Daily conversations with family not just about their personal life but also about mine and my team”. Families contributed to educator’s sense of joy by their feedback about the program, in communicating their children’s happiness to educators and sharing in a sense of belonging. Educators experienced joy through a depth of feeling for their professional role, when they recognised themselves as central players in the bigger picture of supporting children to reach a goal or a milestone, in assisting families and children, or in actions they thought “Truly make a difference”.

Joy was and is everywhere, despite educator burnout, staffing shortages, low salaries, and poor working conditions. It is joy that remained after the educators responded to the needs of the children, at the same time as they prepared lunch, made beds, tended to children’s injuries, both physical and emotional, and tried to find time to plan, program and reflect. Joy could so easily be a casualty to these demands, and to the exigencies of the field of early education overall. All of which are a risk to joy, a risk that as recent events have illustrated, our society should not be so willing to take. The wellbeing of our children, their opportunity to grow and learn with others, to feel valued and appreciated is dependent on a stable and positive professional community. As one director said, “Being happy within really translates to the children”.

Implications of Joy

The reverence that educators expressed for children in our study should be reflected by a reverence in our society for the work they do, reflected in their qualifications, financial compensation and in the day-to-day experiences in each and every program. Day to day experiences that expand on the opportunities for the reciprocal learning that takes place between children and the adults who nurture them. Adults that are well qualified and extremely knowledgeable about the value of quality education in the early years, education that is holistic and which nurtures the whole child. Our early years programs move beyond compliance with standards, rather, they are environments, developed through rich, quality programming that allow educators to observe the children and engage with them in a range of creative learning experiences.  Our work seeks to develop educators’ professional autonomy and provide them with the time to make pedagogical choices that are informed by research, the unique context of their program and not directed by standardized curriculum alone. To restore to them their joy, their joy of being with the children, playing with the children and their joyful pedagogy.

Olivia Karaolis teaches across the School of Education and Social Work at Sydney University. She completed her research at USYD after working in the United States in the field of Early Childhood Education and Special Education. Her focus has been on creating inclusive communities through the framework of the creative arts.

 Cathy Little is the executive director of Initial Teacher Education at the University of Sydney. Her areas of interest are autistic spectrum disorder, high support needs, and positive behaviour support. She lectures at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and is supervising a number of research students.

We refuse to value care – why sexism is at the core of our early childhood crisis

Introduction: The old, old problem

The introduction of an extra year of education for three and four-year olds in New South Wales (by 2030) and Victoria (by 2025) is an ambitious initiative. Articles in response argue that promises to boost provision may be difficult to deliver. Australia already has a problem filling existing positions in childcare.

Yet the commentary frequently glosses over the fundamental cause of these workforce problems. It’s sexism. Discrimination based on stereotypical understandings about gender. That old, old problem that is ever present, even in these post #metoo days, in which society has awakened to #everydaysexism.

Of course, pay, conditions and turnover affect recruitment and retention in the sector. But without naming and addressing the gender inequalities underpinning these issues, they will not be adequately addressed.

Working in a feminised profession

So what’s going on? Education in Australia (as in the UK and Canada) is a feminised profession.

This means both that women do most of the work, especially at lower pay levels, and that it is perceived as “women’s work”. The majority of teachers, at all levels of education from early years to tertiary, are women. In Australian early childhood education, women make up 96% of the workforce.

Feminist theorist Professor Madeleine Grumet has pointed out the relationship between nurturing at home and at school. Devaluing of women’s work at home (and indeed that of all those who act as carers in our society) is echoed in the devaluing of teachers’ work. In early childhood education these are closely interwoven, and it is therefore undermined as ‘child care’ or ‘glorified baby sitting’. Children themselves are also devalued and dismissed as not worthy until they become “fully formed”, idealised adults.

Caring for children, therefore, is “abjectified”. It is pushed beyond the boundaries of what is recognised and rewarded by society. Caring for children involves snot and poo, dribble, phlegm, sweat, tears, glue, mud, paint, food, vomit, crouching on the floor, carrying heavy bodies, tirelessly comforting, calming, encouraging and supporting. It is also rewarding, tender, exhilarating, creative, loving, funny and inspirational.

The gender binary’s impacts

Many feminist researchers believe that society is organised by a gender binary that privileges what is perceived as masculine over what is perceived as feminine. So the “masculine”, or what is serious, scientific, rigorous, rational, measurable, finite, cleanly defined, standardised, programmable, instrumental and technical is valued above the messy, woolly, grubby world of the so-called “feminine”.

This binary operates at countless levels, in countless ways, to keep the hierarchical status quo in place. Misogyny, the hatred of women, and mysopedy, the hatred of children, are at the heart of a larger system that refuses to value caring. This binary’s stereotypes and assumptions also discriminate against male educators working in the sector.

Early childhood teachers are discriminated against, paid low wages and employed under poor conditions because of the gendered nature of their work. This sexism feeds into the discrimination faced by all primary carers, because undermining the quality and extent of “childcare” affects participation in the workforce more generally. We argue that to change early childhood education, the sexism at its heart needs to be openly named, critiqued and challenged.

What can be done?

So… how to go about this, and ultimately, to make the profession more attractive to all, including those of all genders, colours, abilities, class backgrounds and ages? At the most basic level, researchers, the media, policymakers and politicians need to start naming sexism as the basis for the challenges faced by the early childhood sector.

The labour of workers in this sector is never gender-neutral, but always caught up in societal judgements based on its alliance with child-bearing and rearing in the home. We need to stop pretending these challenges are about early childhood education as a career being rejected simply as “boring”, low-paid or hard work.

Nothing less than a paradigm shift is necessary. If the early years are the most vital years of education, in which children develop at an astonishing rate, then we need investment that places these years at the top of any hierarchy.

Instead of valuing a medical paradigm in education, where being efficient, scientific and  “clinical” are revered, we need to value what is culturally considered to be more feminine. We might ask, “Are there kindergarten surgeons, who model their practice on the patience, kindness and empathy of early childhood teachers?” Flipping a scenario is often a handy way to expose the gender stereotypes and power asymmetries that underpin it.

Conclusion: Reinvention needs both imagination… and funding

Raising the status of early childhood teachers, paying them more, restructuring their work to acknowledge its intensity and toll, creating and rewarding career progression, making early years programs permeable with local communities, creating vibrant, accessible and well-resourced professional learning environments, enhancing early childhood teacher preparation, incentivising transfer for those in other careers, funding vitally needed research… there is no shortage of ideas for where money can be spent.

Whether there is the courage and honesty to address the real problem at the heart of early childhood education is another matter.

Dr Lucinda McKnight is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Research Award (DECRA) Fellow in the REDI (Research for Educational Impact) Centre at Deakin University. She uses a range of feminist theories in her work on teacher autonomy and professionalism. She is also a mother of two children and has spent many hours caring for children at home, and providing community support in early childhood education as a parent helper. Follow her Teaching Digital Writing project blog or her twitter account @lucindamcknight8

Dr Natalie Robertson is a Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at Deakin University. During her time working as an early childhood teacher, she developed a strong interest in workforce issues and play-based learning. These interests have followed Natalie into her later research and work in initial teacher education.  Natalie’s focus on workforce issues has framed her professional and research interests towards the attraction and retention of teachers in early childhood education. She is currently working with the Victorian Department of Education and Training to deliver the Early Childhood Professional Practice Partnerships (ECPPP) project) and the Innovate ITE program: Accelerated Bachelor of Early Childhood Education.

It’s one thing to extend preschool. But where is the supply of the remarkable teachers we need?

Rachael Hedger on early childhood reform: implications for our children, the sector, and the economy.

This week, Victoria and New South Wales jointly announced a universal preschool year for all 4-year-old children, offering 30-hours of fully subsided ‘pre-prep’ or ‘pre-kindergarten’. Victoria plans to implement this change from 2025 whilst NSW will begin from 2030.

This announcement demonstrates a significant investment in families and young children, improving workforce participation for mothers, and therefore providing a substantial boost to the economy.

The news is music to the ears of the Early Childhood sector who have advocated for the importance of early learning for decades. The Thrive by Five Campaign, part of the Minderoo Foundation, have advocated for equal and early access to early learning to politicians and the government for some time now. Whilst parents may have concerns about putting their child into an Early Years setting for 5-days per week, at this stage, the opportunity is optional. As the people who know their child best, parents have agency here as to whether they take up the offer, considering what will work best for them within their own family dynamic.

Whilst it’s great to have Commonwealth and State level government support, this initiative is not without its complexities.

A key consideration in these early stages is whether these States have the infrastructure needed to uphold this promise. As it stands, there will be considerable issues in rural and remote areas, with 44% of regional families and 85% of remote families living in a ‘childcare desert’.

Australia’s disadvantaged children have a lot to gain from regular preschool attendance. AEDC data reveals that children in the poorest areas of Australia are three times more likely to demonstrate developmental vulnerability than children in wealthier areas. Universal access could help reduce this statistic. However, attendance alone is not enough to close the equity gap. These children need high-quality, accessible, play-based opportunities provided by knowledgeable and experienced educators.

Crucial to effective Early Childhood education is a rich, play-based program of teaching and learning. The first five years is when a child’s brain develops the most. These years are vital for setting the foundation for life-long learning and children’s ability to form meaningful relationships. It is through play that children engage and interact with the world around them developing creativity, imagination, problem solving, and social and emotional skills. To facilitate valuable play opportunities for children, they need educators who understand the theories that underpin effective play pedagogies. We need educators who are specially trained to support, guide and care for children successfully.

The most significant matter in implementing this reform will be the distinct lack of Early Childhood educators across the sector. Before the announcement on Wednesday, there were an estimated 6000 vacancies for educators in birth-5 settings, with a predicted 39,000 educators needed by 2023. The reform will be directly dependent on a strong Education and Care Workforce Strategy that recruits and retains Early Childhood educators. At present, the lower-than-average pay and conditions results in huge staff turnover as they leave the sector to look for more prosperous opportunities. This greatly impacts children’s learning as they cannot establish and build meaningful, positive relationships with a consistent caregiver.

Working with young children is a rewarding profession. To see children flourish and grow on a daily basis is a beautiful experience. Simultaneously, it is hard work. To care for young children’s needs involves feeding, cleaning and toileting, keeping them safe at all times. To educate young children involves observing, assessing and documenting their learning, preparing resources and the learning environment, and maintaining relationships with families. It involves engaging in play opportunities, extending children’s thinking through questioning and conversation, encouraging new language, and supporting children’s physical, social and emotional development. Few people understand the complexities of balancing the differing demands of this role. Childcare is often seen as only child-care, and this is perhaps why it is underrated and undervalued. An Education and Care Workforce Strategy would need to attract, retain, value and appropriately pay educators for the vital work that they do with young children.

Accompanying the announcement this week, there was mention of incentives to encourage the uptake of Early Childhood Education degrees. Some Eastern universities are looking to offer fast-tracked degrees ranging from 3-years to as little as 18-months. Many will provide up to a year of credit for Certificate III and Diploma qualified applicants, shortening their study time considerably. This approach questions the quality of the Early Childhood educators that we look to produce. If governments invest billions of dollars into the sector only to staff it with employees that have not been adequately educated, we defeat the purpose of what we’ve set out to achieve; quality education for our young children. Teaching is an art form. It takes time and commitment to understand how children learn, the theories that underpin practice, and experience in how to effectively educate Australia’s diverse children. Rushing educators through an Early Childhood education degree will not deliver quality outcomes and would be a disservice to our children.

The reform announcement this week is long overdue and should be celebrated. It is a guaranteed boost for the economy and offers more choice for working parents, but we should tread with caution from here. The biggest and best investment that we can make is in our youngest citizens. They are our future. Australia is beginning to put the economy where it belongs – in our children’s hands.

The main question now is if, or when, will the other States follow?

Rachael Hedger is a Lecturer in Early Childhood Education and Course Coordinator for the Early Childhood Initial Teacher Education degrees at Flinders University. She is undertaking a PhD (Deakin University) in which she explores on how arts-based practices can support children’s science learning. Her research interests focus on how drawing can be used as a vehicle for exploring science concepts, focussing on process and exploration. She is a supporter of learning through play pedagogies and encouraging pre-service teachers to be advocates for young children’s learning. 

Why kids under five must start learning to code


There’s a lot of pressure to learn coding in primary school to develop 21st century computational skills. But I think we should start in preschool.

Schools and governments recognise the need for teaching 21st century skills. We can see the evidence for that in the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. But just as we teach preschool children the fundamentals of reading, we must now include computational thinking and coding.

While many early childhood services may have digital technologies, how they are presented and taught to young children, requires more focus and perhaps, upskilling of educators.

In my research we use cubettos. These are simple wooden square box robots with a smiley face that come with coding boards with colourful plastic pieces which make the robots move. We also uses bee-bots, small plastic bee-shaped robots with simple programming buttons on their backs, and blue-bots, clear cased bee-shaped robots that respond to commands sent from a computer or iPad.

I have been exploring how children learn to use them, and how educators support their use, as an extension to my PhD research. With 3-5 year olds, they realise that the pieces you put in the coding board, or the buttons you push, make the robots move in particular ways, and you can start explaining how they move and why they follow our commands.

Learning the basics of robotics at this age will set the foundation for primary school learning. It’s a great introduction to pre-maths, algorithms, counting and problem-solving: they learn this is the ‘recipe’ that moves the robots along.

While some early childhood education services have some robots to play with, what’s missing is the opportunity for richer learning that these devices offer.

Some educators will have a blue-bot or bee-bot and they might push the buttons to create a code for the children, but they’re not necessarily taking the next step to explaining the concept of coding.

The aim for my research is to think about the best way to equip educators to teach coding to pre-schoolers through play, for example whether it will be creating an instruction manual or workshop or something else.

Screens and play

Another aspect of technology is the use of screen technologies among the 3-5 year old age group, both real and replica or broken, which I call ‘imaginative’ technologies. Children want to use real technologies in play, but imaginative technologies are the next best thing. Children today live in a digital world and, given the opportunity, will readily use technology to meet their play needs.

Through my research, which has included interviewing 84 educators in the New England region alongside my colleague Dr Marg Rogers, I have found some educators are reluctant to incorporate real technologies into their classrooms for use by very young children.

Some educators and parents believe early use of technology will reduce their child’s creativity and imagination. Others encourage it. I have found with people holding such strong views, discussions on the subject can be a minefield.

Many services don’t provide real technology for children. They might use an iPad or camera, but it’s very controlled and directed, and the children are not given enough time with the technologies to develop skills and to learn.

The anxiety around using screens could also be further compounded and confused by current national guidelines on screen use.

National guidelines out of step

The current national guidelines recommend children under two are not exposed to any screen time. But this is really out of sync with home or modern life. So, it’s an interesting question for technology researchers like myself – do we follow the guidelines and not give technology to children? But children see technology and in their imaginative play, they want to copy what adults do.

They see people on phones, taking photos and typing on computers from an early age. How can you then have a ‘home corner’ in early childhood education centres that don’t have any of that? How many restaurants take orders on a phone or iPad? How can children re-enact what goes on in a restaurant without technology? Same with a doctor’s surgery or a supermarket. Technology is everywhere.

In a new research project, I will ask children aged 3-5 what they want in their imaginative play spaces and if they can make (out of recycled materials), what they need to in order to have an imaginative play space reflective of the real thing. For example, having iPads in a restaurant to take the orders or look up recipes. I believe real technologies also need to play a larger role in early childhood education.

And I don’t believe we can stop children accessing technologies.

I think it’s a bit disrespectful to not let children use technology in their play. How does it compute in their brains that technology is everywhere in their world, but they are not allowed to use or understand it? It must be confusing for them. I have found, educators need to support children’s technology use in positive ways. I’d like to see non screen-based coding, and iPads with select apps chosen for the learning that’s possible, including to document their own learning, in the preschool years.

Children need to learn how to use technologies and when it is appropriate to use them. Hopefully further research will help to guide the provision of technologies and guidelines for its use, support children’s ethical behaviour and reduce some of the discomfort educators and parents feel around the inclusion of working technologies in children’s lives.

Jo Bird is a senior lecturer at the University of New England, Armidale. Her PhD explored children’s use of digital technologies in imaginative play and the educators’ provision of the various devices, both working and imaginative. Her research interests include children’s play, the use of technologies by both children and educators and early childhood leadership. She loves presenting, both her research and inspiring others to use technologies in creative ways with children and to recognise their leadership worth.