Those unaffordable and over-regulated gold-plated pre-schools. Sorry!

Maxine McKew is generally blamed for giving impetus to the move to gold-plate pre-schools in the interests of quality learning experiences rather than simple old-fashioned and affordable child care.

On coming to political office Maxine McKew was immediately elevated to the executive and was sworn in as Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education in December of 2007. In this capacity, she led Labor’s reform agenda and through COAG secured agreement with the states for the first national standards on a quality framework for childcare and pre-schools.

It is amusing to find out who was on that bandwagon a few years ago.

Oh well, as the Good Soldier Schweik said, anyone can make a mistake and the more a man thinks about things the more mistakes he is bound to make.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Those unaffordable and over-regulated gold-plated pre-schools. Sorry!

  1. .

    She tried to implement something like the AQF in pre schools?

    The AQF is a failure in vocational and higher education, anwyay, and takes a lot of compliance to follow.

    She is either evil or incredibly dumb.

  2. nilk

    Spelling, Rafe, spelling!

  3. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Grand aspirations mean zilch when the care becomes unaffordable and also unworkable because of lack of ‘appropriately trained’ staff.

    A lot of the training is just make-work for the TAFE sector anyway. Could be done on the job with a workbook and internet chat room at night in two weeks imho. The creeping credentialism allows claims for more pay to be progressed, making everything more unaffordable yet again. Compliance with a lot of detail and a lot of paperwork is burden that drives down the quality of care, not increases it.

    Once again, a few middle class women with good intentions make difficult the lives of working class women everywhere.

  4. dragnet

    Well said Lizzie B, you saved me making a longer post.

  5. Token

    The creeping credentialism allows claims for more pay to be progressed, making everything more unaffordable yet again.

    The spin-masters have ruled it is not creeping credentialism, it is wages equality.

  6. blogstrop

    Geez, Rafe, you were a long-winded young bastard then – as opposed to now,

  7. Rabz

    Remind me again how many children maxxie mcpoo has?

    Oh, that’s right, none.

  8. M Ryutin

    Quite right LizzieB. However, with this concept of ‘credentialism’ there are additional complications other than cost – and not just for working class women who will seek unofficial alternatives just because they have to. I include place, date and time availability as well as cost. The most fascinating expose came after Tony Abbott quite rightly proposed looking anew at after-hours care and nannies etc (as if shift workers never ever came into the calculations of the vested interests). Apart from the stupid government failing to use any political nous and kick it into the political never-never by agreeing to an enquiry down the track, they attacked it as being for the rich and so on, to subsidise cleaners and drivers etc. Then when it gained traction – that a real need was exposed for those very same shift workers and other irregular hours people (the nurses unions publicly announced support for alternatives) – the industry vested interests came out with all guns blazing and the Gillard mouthpieces joined in. The vested interests virtually announced that they were going to fight this to the death for their financial (and ‘professional’) interests in a glaring admission in this article:-

    The article simply throws open the full implications of this continuing monopoly by these vested interests. Criminalise (or just unionise – as the SEIU does in the USA) of family members providing these in-home services for free or with a govt subsidy. They know – and fear – a huge reduction in their ability to stand and deliver on price and places as they can now . They have to stop the sensible alternative by government regulation. Heaven forbid if any one of those thousands of grandparents or – ugh – nannies actually get a fraction of the subsidies going to keep the child care owners in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

    Just in case the Gillard crew relented in the face of real pressure, a half-hearted attempt to continue their costly monopoly was the industry concession to the actual need for after-hours care but by insisting that their carers do it whilst moonlighting (at government/taxpayers expense).

    My final point, though, is that not only working class parents but all parents will more and more look to an uncontrolled and entirely unchecked after/irregular hours alternative that has no checks at all. Five kids looked after in a home unit for $20 or so a day will be the only alternative for women who have to work. The Big Brother, vested interests pre-emptive- strike seems to lead only to banning innocent grandparents from doing what the actual parents are unchecked in doing: letting the children spend that time in their own home!

Comments are closed.