UnitingCare Children’s Services Submission
on the Regulation Impact Statement
Nurturing confident and creative learners
© 2014 UnitingCare Children’s Services
Submission prepared December 2014
Prepared by: XX
With input from: XX
Contact Person:
XX
UnitingCare Children’s Services
UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families
PO Box 7137 Silverwater NSW 2128
Website: www.unitingcarechildrensservices.org.au
CONTENTS
About UnitingCare Children’s Services
1
Executive Summary
2
Structure of this submission
2
Refining the NQS assessment and rating process
3
Feedback on changes to the NQS
3
Comments on changed standards and elements
6
6
7
Removal of inclusionary provisions
Removal of reference to ratios and qualifications requirements 4.A.i
Removing supervisor certificate requirements
10
Expanding the scope of the NQF
10
Extending some liability to educators
10
Changes to prescribed fees (5.1-5.4)
12
National educator to child ratio for OSHC service
12
Other changes which will have a regulatory impact
13
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
ii
About UnitingCare Children’s Services
UnitingCare Children’s Services (UCCS) is the third largest provider of
children’s services in NSW, with over 55 services in NSW and the ACT. We
provide quality education and care to over 6,500 children and families each
year. UCCS services include long day care, preschool, outside school hours
care, occasional care and integrated child and family centres.
Our purpose is to provide an educative environment that nurtures resilient and
confident children through inclusive services in partnership with families and
communities. UCCS aims to nurture the confidence and development of
children, enabling them to have the best start in their critical formative years.
We value and advocate for positive early childhood education and care
experiences that lead to opportunities throughout life for all children.
UCCS is part of UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families, a service
group of UnitingCare NSW.ACT. The Service Group is comprised of
UnitingCare Burnside, UnitingCare Unifam Counselling and Mediation,
UnitingCare Disability, UCCS and the Institute of Family Practice, a registered
training organisation.
Together these organisations form one of the largest providers of services to
support children and families in NSW. We represent over 100 years of
experience providing innovative and quality programs and advocacy to break
the cycle of disadvantage that affects vulnerable children, young people and
families. UnitingCare CYPF provides services across the continuum, ranging
from preventative programs such as supported playgroups; early intervention
programs such as Brighter Futures; intensive family support programs; out-ofhome care programs and aftercare programs.
UCCS is a part of the UnitingCare Australia network, which brings together a
broad range of services supporting children, young people and families across
Australia. Through UnitingCare Australia’s network we contribute to national
policy debates on key issues that impact on children including early childhood
education and care. UnitingCare provides early childhood services in every
state and territory including thirty per cent delivered in regional and remote
parts of Australia. UnitingCare also provides a range of other services for
vulnerable children, young people and families which interface with our early
chil
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
1
dhood work.
Executive Summary
The Summary of Findings from the 2014 National Quality Framework (NQF)
review process earlier this year is a welcome document that cements sector
support for a cohesive quality national early childhood education and care
(ECEC) sector. UCCS believes that the NQF has provided significant benefits
for children, a view shared by the majority of the sector.
In responding to the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) we have supported
those options that provide a pragmatic approach to concerns raised about
operational and administrative issues. These options are timely, easy to
implement, and where they impact on the sector will increase quality outputs
for children. However, we do not support more substantial changes to the
sector, particularly to the National Quality Standard (NQS) and note that these
suggestions contradict the RIS summary that found “no desire for more
systematic change at this time”.1
Many of the options suggested for the NQS will create implementation issues
for the sector, have unrecognised associated costs, and reduce quality. As a
central document core to the NQF, changes have ramifications for training
and practice frameworks that we do not believe have been adequately
accounted for. We believe that a separate process is needed to review the
NQS. This should be driven by an industry reference group who would be able
to provide more detailed guidance to the sector on what the changes mean,
and to ensure they are driven by best practice evidence.
Structure of this submission
In responding to the RIS, UCCS has chosen to provide feedback only on
areas that are relevant for our services. The first section below addresses
options provided in the seven headline areas. We provide some additional
limited commentary on section 8 (‘other changes which will have a regulatory
impact’) where we perceive the options to be of some importance.
1
Education Council. 2014, Regulation Impact Statement for Proposed Options for Changes to
the National Quality Framework, COAG consultation regulatory impact statement, p.4
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
2
Refining the NQS assessment and rating
process
1.1 Reduce the complexity of the NQS
1.1A UCCS does not support any change of the NQS
Suggested changes to the NQS contained in the RIS raise a number of issues
including timing, process, costs and broader sectoral implications.
Fundamentally, UCCS believes that the NQS and any suggested
modifications to it should be considered separately from the other sector-wide
options presented in the RIS. This process should be driven by an
independent industry reference group.
We believe that many of the issues raised around regulatory and
administrative burden could be eased through an alteration of the ratings and
assessment process, rather than changing the NQS. Further options in the
RIS tackle these processes and present some alternatives that could help to
address issues of cost and administration.
In addressing options presented for the NQS we first focus on broad issues
associated with the options presented before providing specific feedback on
individual elements and standards.
Feedback on changes to the NQS
1. Erosion of quality standards
The NQS was developed based on best practice research and is linked to
national learning frameworks and accredited training.2 The development of the
NQS was endorsed by each Territory and State government through COAG. It
is a central document that is core to the functioning of the sector. Changes to
components of the elements therefore have broad ramifications especially
where language or intent has been substantially altered from the original.
Change to numbering conventions adds an additional element of confusion.
2
ACECQA, 2013, Guide to the National Quality Standard, p.8
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
3
For instance, all reference to intentional teaching has been removed from the
NQS. 1.2.2 originally talked about educators responding to children’s ideas
and play through intentional teaching. This has been replaced by 1.Bi that
reduces “intentional teaching” down to a brief description of what intentional
teaching is, that “educators are deliberate, purposeful and thoughtful in their
decisions and actions”.
Intentional teaching is one of eight key pedagogical practices outlined in the
Early Years Learning Framework. It promotes a form of active learning where
child-adult interactions are key and where it is recognised that children’s
thinking can be extended through provocation and reflection, through
questioning and building upon their existing knowledge.3 As a practice it has
been embedded in a variety of frameworks and training programs, and an
extensive number of resources have been developed to explain
implementation of the practice. The new wording does not reflect the depth of
“intentional teaching practice” and so it is not clear if it is expected that
practice would change.
It may be that removal of “intentional teaching” was an attempt to simplify
language however this, along with the alteration of many other elements has
achieved the opposite. What was a shared understanding around terminology
and pedagogy has been replaced by vague language which is open to a
variety of interpretations and is unclear. We believe that this could lead to
confusion in the sector.
Having a review process of the NQS driven by an industry group would assist
in identifying where attempts to simplify language will impact on practice. It
would also assist in ensuring changes made are reflective of best practice
pedagogy. The group could also identify where resources would need to be
produced in order to support the sector in implementing changes so that
services are clear on what expectations and understandings are around the
new elements and standards.
Early Years Training, 2011, Intentional Teaching…Understanding One of the EYLF’s
Practices, [accessed 15/12/2014] at <http://earlyyearstraining.com.au/news/intentional-teachingunderstanding-one-of-the-eylfs-practices/>; The Early Years Learning Framework Professional
Learning Program, 2010, Intentional Teaching, e-Newsletter no.2 <
http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/nqsplp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EYLFPLP_ENewsletter_No2.pdf>
3
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
4
2. Costs
Given that many of the suggested changes will impact upon training and the
Early Years Learning Framework, the costs associated with altering the NQS
are underestimated. The RIS envisages a “modest level of one-off costs
associated with implementing any changes” but the true cost is much broader
than that. There will need to be a process of altering training courses across
VET and Universities to ensure that students are cognisant of new standards,
practice and terminology. Additional resources need to be produced as
outlined above to assist services with implementation of the new Standards.
As a service provider we also contest the assumption that the cost will be oneoff and moderate. This assessment does not take into consideration money
already spent by each organisation on training staff and services, running
internal audits and assessments and producing internal guidelines and
procedures in order to meet the current NQS. This investment has been
significant (although essential). A repeat process will incur further costs and
render some of the initial investment void.
3. Reduction in some standards but not requirements
UCCS notes that in some areas standards and elements have been merged
together in the same sentence, thereby reducing the number of standards and
elements but not the actual requirements of services under the Standards.
This does not add weight or value to the system and it is unclear what the
benefit of these changes are, except for numerically reducing the number of
elements. For instance, 2.A.iii amalgamates elements 2.2.1 (healthy eating)
and 2.2.2 (physical activity) into the same element, but services still need to
demonstrate that both healthy eating and physical activity are promoted.
4. Timing
Given that the majority of the sector are yet to undergo a rating and
assessment process, UCCS does not support changing the NQS until such
time as all services have been assessed. We also note that according to the
RIS those services who had undergone ratings and assessment reported
much lower levels of administrative burden. We would therefore assume less
reporting of administrative burden by the sector overall at this point, reducing
the impetus for reform.
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
5
Comments on changed standards and elements
Removal of inclusionary provisions
Removal of 1.1.5 and adaptation of 3.1.3 eradicates language around
inclusion of children with additional needs and children of diverse
backgrounds. The new provisions do not adequately address inclusion.
As explained in the ACECQA Guide to the NQS, the purpose of element 1.1.5
was to take account of each child’s diversity (including their differing social,
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, abilities and gender) and to ensure that all
of their experiences are recognised and valued.4 In the Guide, there is clear
articulation of what assessors may observe in a service as demonstration of
this, including educators and coordinators:
“being consistently aware of and responsive to children who may require
additional support, assistance or attention” and “noticing and listening
carefully to children’s concerns and discussing diverse perspectives on issues
of inclusion and exclusion and fair and unfair behaviour”.5
3.1.3 outlined how facilities should be designed or adapted “to ensure access
and participation by every child in the service”. In 3.A.i this has been reduced
to ensuring outdoor and indoor spaces support “access of every child”.
Emphasis on participation is important, as a child may physically be able to
access in a service but may be impeded from participating in activities for
example not having adequate explanation or encouragement.
UCCS believes that inclusion, and supportive practice of children with
additional needs is vitally important, and that services have an obligation to
demonstrate how they are supporting each child in their service to fully
participate. The inclusivity expressed in this element is not repeated in other
clauses. It is not clear on what basis the decision was made to remove this
element.
4
5
2013, p.32
Ibid
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
6
Removal of reference to ratios and qualifications requirements
4.A.i
It is our understanding that references to ratios and qualifications were
removed as they are viewed as a duplication of regulatory requirements.
While this is true, the NQS is an integrated compliance and accreditation
system with services rated according to how they perform against the
Standards. Given suggested changes to the Significant Improvement required
rating (1.4) it is logical that reference to ratios and qualifications remain, so
that breaches can be dealt with immediately.
In the event that it is decided to implement changes to the existing 4.1.1,
UCCS recommend that the text of 4.A.i be revised. It is currently not clear
what the intent of 4.A.i is, or what “deployment” means.
1.2 Streamline process for quality assessments
1.2B UCCS supports proposed changes
UCCS agrees that streamlining assessment approaches across jurisdictions
will assist with consistency of assessments. Additional supports and
resourcing of assessors is a welcome investment. We note that the Summary
of Findings from the 2014 National Quality Framework Review Consultation
Process found sector-wide support for streamlining assessments and rating
processes rather than any systemic changes to the NQS.6
1.3 Reduction in documentation of child assessments or evaluations in
OSHC services
UCCS proposes both the amendment of Regulation 74 AND the retraining of
authorised officers
UCCS agrees that Regulation 74 should be amended so that services must
document the development of the program rather than individual children’s
development. However, UCCS still see a need to document an individual
child’s participation in the program, particularly what the child is doing and
6
Woolcott Research, 2014, Summary of Findings from the 2014 National Quality Framework
Review Consultation Process, p.4
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
7
what their outcomes or potential outcomes are from engaging in the
activity/ies.
In addition UCCS shares concerns raised in the RIS that “many authorised
officers do not adequately understand the context of OSHC services”. 7
Programs and practice vary markedly between different service types.
Assessors that have relevant skills and experience of appropriate pedagogy in
the context of OSHC would provide more accurate ratings, and more
meaningful feedback to services. We therefore support retraining authorised
officers in a manner that better recognises the context of OSHC as suggested
in option 1.3C.
However, we maintain that the best way of attaining effectiveness in the
assessment process is to ensure assessors have qualifications and
experience specific to the service being assessed (as per the previous quality
improvement and assurance system). In lieu of that, assessment training is
helpful for contextualising the assessment process, but we question whether a
one day training course (as suggested by the RIS) is sufficient.
1.4 Significant Improvement required rating
1.4B UCCS supports the removal of the SIR rating with quality assessment
rating process ceasing where it is determined that there is an unacceptable
risk to the child
UCCS agrees that where there is an unacceptable risk to the child, resources
of the regulatory authority would be better utilised in addressing the risk rather
than continuing with the assessment process.
1.5 Options for Exceeding NQS rating
In principle UCCS supports 1.5B with conditions attached
In principle UCCS supports altering the current system so that Exceeding
ratings are only achieved where all standards are met under a particular
quality area.
7
2014, p.29
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
8
1.6 Options for excellent rating
1.6B UCCS supports the removal of the Excellent rating
UCCS agrees that the Excellent rating causes inequity in the ratings system,
as some services are precluded from applying due to the costs associated
with the application process.
1.7 Options for ensuring ratings accurately reflect services quality
1.7B UCCS supports the removal of the overall rating and reliance on the
seven quality areas to indicate service quality
UCCS supports the removal of the overall rating, with ratings against each of
the seven quality areas to instead indicate service quality.
1.8 Options for length of time between assessments
1.8A UCCS does not support changing the length of time between
assessments
UCCS contends that a three year rating cycle is an appropriate timeframe
between assessments. An option for a five-yearly rating cycle leaves too
much time between assessments. The ECEC sector is marked by high staff
turnover, and management and ownership of services can also change
rapidly. In the space of five years a service could have completely changed
from the first assessment, including having a different set of enrolments, staff
and management.
Ratings and assessments are a mechanism through which services
demonstrate the quality of their service. Through the ratings process services
also need to demonstrate continuous improvement. Expanding timeframes, or
removing them altogether will undermine sector efforts and commitments to a
quality sector.
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
9
Removing supervisor certificate requirements
2.1 Removing supervisor certificates
UCCS supports the removal of supervisor certificates but nominated
supervisors need to remain
UCCS agrees that the application process for supervisor certificates is
burdensome and should be removed. However, nominated supervisors must
remain to ensure there is oversight of regulatory implementation at a service
and that there is a person legally obligated to ensure regulatory compliance in
services.
UCCS suggests that nominated supervisors are appointed through notification
rather than application in order to expedite the process and reduce
administrative costs and burdens. A standard notification process could
address the issues that the certified supervisor positions were attempting to
resolve – namely consistency of skills and experience. For example, criteria
could be provided outlining suitable nominated supervisor candidates, and
expectations and responsibilities of the nominated supervisor and/or person in
day-to-day charge.
Expanding the scope of the NQF
3.1 Additional services to be included in the NQF
3.1C UCCS supports the inclusion of services regulated under another
children’s services law in the NQF.
UCCS supports the inclusion of additional services into the NQF where those
services are currently regulated under another children’s services law. As
noted by the RIS, the inclusion of other services into the NQF fulfils the
original intent of the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality
Agenda.
Given that the NQF was created in order to promote quality in the sector,
UCCS does not believe it is appropriate for unregulated services to be
included in the NQF at this stage. However, we would like to see all services
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
10
regulated and brought in to the NQF at some point in the future.
3.2 Options for application of assessment and rating processes to
additional services
3.2A UCCS supports the extension of NQS assessment and ratings process
to all additional services included in the NQF (where 3.1C implemented)
Regulated services currently out of scope of the NQF already have their own
compliance mechanisms. UCCS therefore does not believe that a “significant
adjustment” would be required of these services for them to meet assessment
and ratings guidelines.
As per our recommendation for option 1.3, greater support and training should
be given to assessors so they are able to understand and assess services in
different contexts. UCCS would also assume that the NQF would be tailored
to services to reflect quality in each particular early learning service type.
Extending some liability to educators
4.1 Extend some liability to educators
4.1A UCCS strongly opposes the extension of liability to educators
UCCS strongly opposes the extension of liability to educators and challenges
the underlying logic for introducing this change. The RIS notes that “without
any potential liability or penalty some educators do not take their
responsibilities seriously and do not provide adequate supervision”. We
believe that in these instances, an educator could be disciplined through
workplace relations laws or under the services code of conduct. Supervisors,
Managers and Directors are ultimately responsible for ensuring educators
behave responsibly and have authority to ensure that staff behave in a
professionally correct matter.
There are also many structural, environmental and programmatic factors that
impact on the wellbeing of children in a service that are not the responsibility
of educators. For example, educators do not have responsibility for decisions
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
11
over room layout, equipment purchase and content of policies and programs
that deal with interactions and supervision. It is therefore right and reasonable
that liability continues to sit with people within a service that have higher
authority.
We also note that in our experience the lack of libel laws has not resulted in
less responsible behaviour. Educators are professionals drawn to work in the
sector due to their commitment to children, education and development, with
low wages acting as a disincentive for many to work in the sector. Where
individual staff misconduct is more serious, UCCS contest that there are
appropriate mechanisms for addressing this through the criminal code and the
child protection act.
Changes to prescribed fees (5.1-5.4)
UCCS would support a modest increase in one of the nominated fees to more
adequately sustain the administration and regulatory cost of the NQF.
However, we do not support 100% increases in any fees, as suggested by
some of the options in sections 5.1 to 5.4.
National educator to child ratio for OSHC
service
6.1 Options for national educator to child ratio for OSHC services
6.1B UCCS supports the introduction of educator to child ratios in OSHC
services
UCCS strongly supports the introduction of educator to child ratios in OSHC
services. NSW is the only jurisdiction that does not currently have a legislated
ratio. Although we know that many OSHC services in NSW operate at a 1:15
standard, this is not currently legally enforceable and puts NSW at a
disadvantage to all other jurisdictions. Providing minimum ratios creates a
national baseline of quality.
We agree that 1:15 ratios provide a solid basis for minimum quality provision.
Where jurisdictions operate above these minimum requirements (currently
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
12
only WA and the ACT) they should be supported to continue to do so. UCCS
notes that national regulation has protected standards higher than the NQF in
those jurisdictions where they exist through grandfathering arrangements.
This should be extended to ratios in OSHC services.
Other changes which will have a regulatory
impact
UCCS would like to make comment on the following proposals:
Proposal
UCCS response
Proposal 8.1.4 - Approvals – maximum
children numbers as service approval
condition
Proposal 8.3.7 – Terminology
UCCS supports maximum child numbers on service
approval but do not support this to be extended to
specified numbers within age-groups .
Where a responsible person (such as a Director) is
nominated supervisor and is job sharing then the
suggested amendments seem reasonable. However,
detail needs to be provided on when each person is
accountable under the role.
UCCS agrees with removing written consent when
appointing the Nominated Supervisor, however, the
regulatory authorities should be provided with notification
of the appointment.
UCCS supports this proposal in light of suggestions
above.
The suggested amendments are confusing. UCCS
currently has a ‘responsible person’ in day to day charge
and believe that this is suitable terminology.
Proposal 8.3.8 - Child protection and
Nominated Supervisors
Proposal 8.4.3 - First Aid Qualifications
UCCS supports the suggested amendments.
UCCS supports the suggested amendments.
Proposal 8.7.1 - Notifying the regulatory
authority of a complaint
UCCS supports the suggested amendments.
Proposal 8.7.2 - Regulations – Medical
conditions policy
UCCS supports the suggested amendments.
Proposal 8.3.3 - Job sharing
Proposal 8.3.4 - Consenting to the role
Proposal 8.3.5 – Notifications
Submission to the RIS
UnitingCare Children Services – December 2014
13