Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The childcare factory

By Joel Bevin - posted Thursday, 4 December 2008


The demise of ABC Learning Centres at the end of October and the subsequent $22 million government bail out in early November has seen the childcare industry fall under the microscope. How much of the market should private operators like ABC Learning control? What form should government support for childcare take? And does our reliance on formal childcare make sense?

In an industry with relatively low levels of concentration, ABC Learning enjoyed a dominant position operating over 1,000 centres with a market share of more than 20 per cent - one in every four children in childcare attended an ABC Learning facility.

The power ABC Learning commanded came from both aggressive expansion and indirect government support. In 2008-09, Canberra is expected to pump up to $1.8 billion into childcare measures such as the baby bonus. This support has acted as a springboard for the industry which has grown almost 6 per cent annually since 2003 and is set to be worth around $7 billion in 2009.

Advertisement

Not only is there a favourable regulatory environment, but the industry has also hit the demographic jackpot.

Since the mid 1990s, the popularity of childcare has boomed as several factors aligned.

Women entered the workforce in increasing numbers, and declined to take extended leave to provide stay-at-home childcare. Mortgages expanded in line with the surging property market of the early 2000s, and to maximise leverage, income from both mother and father was mandatory. At the same time, the concept of retirement, along with the term itself, received critical review. This resulted in a childcare void left by grandparents who chose a Pacific cruise over minding the grandchildren.

As a result of these trends, the drop-off and pick-up at childcare centres has come to typify the mornings and afternoons of thousands of parents around Australia.

Today, almost half of all children are in childcare, with formal care provided by registered centres accounting for a growing proportion. Delving deeper, for families where both parents are employed, almost 60 per cent of children aged 0-4 are enrolled in formal childcare. Operators, including ABC Learning, took advantage of these trends and expanded at a rate which brought smiles to investors and parents alike.

During this decade, childcare has become a reality for a growing number of parents. Indeed, it is privilege, with many parents signing up for waiting lists at the first signs of a baby bump so as to secure a sought-after place. This reality represents a win for multi-functional gender equality by allowing both parents to continue working full-time in an environment where presence and visibility are still tied to promotion. Despite the best efforts of businesses to promote flexible alternatives such as part-time and work-from-home arrangements, employees take advantage of these with caution.

Advertisement

Employers are obligated to provide 52 weeks of maternity leave and many companies, in an effort to be recognised as an “employer of choice”, are offering various forms of paid maternity leave. However, in the majority of cases this is only open to the mother. By making paid maternity leave only available to the mother of the child, society confuses gender equality. Not only is the opportunity of parenting stolen away from fathers, but additional pressure is placed on mothers to take advantage of the leave on offer - shifting a decision away from families and back to the human resources department.

At the conclusion of the mandated maternity leave, a return to the workforce beckons. Some choose the appealing part-time option, which requires a level of financial surety. Others opt to work-from-home despite the silent sneers from colleagues and a promotion-threatening lack of visibility. And there is another group who choose to extricate themselves from the workforce entirely and remain in the role of full-time child-carer. Not only does this decision place financial strain on the household budget as double incomes suddenly become one, but expertise is also threatened as employers equate a multiple year break to a step back in time.

By choosing formal childcare and remaining in the workforce, parents, especially mothers, are able to provide a shining example of multi-tasking and achievement which their own children and women everywhere can aspire to. However, in doing so, they forgo time with their children, assigning trust to the employees of businesses like ABC Learning.

Does this benefit children who are exposed to reality from an earlier age and are quickly aware of the sacrifices required to achieve the lifestyle their parents are able to offer. Are they better able to adapt to a communication-based society? Or does it actually result in a homogenous breed of child that, from an early age, follows a predictable routine which fails to diverge from the thousands who attend childcare across the country.

ABC Learning promises to help children learn, nurture their development and protect them in a safe place. They also promise to, “… continue to focus our efforts maintaining growth for shareholders”. Does this safe environment, run to a balance sheet, truly challenge children to grow as individuals? Surely they deserve at least a few years stumbling upon their own answers to life rather than accepting the consensus promoted in an environment that encourages convergence of behaviour and attitudes.

Childcare centres provide a necessary service and expose children to “reality” several years earlier than used to be the case when school was the first shy foray into the world. How this arrangement serves children remains to be seen. Will this new norm speed up the development of their people skills, arguably our true value to the world? Or will it lead to a generation who are alike in all too many ways because of an innate desire of all humans, especially children, to assimilate - speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, following the same trends and seeing the world through the same-coloured glasses.

Deciding how to care for our children in their formative years is crucial and the cultural, financial and personal pressures that cloud this decision need to be recognised and accounted for. Perhaps a drastic shift in policy is in order.

In Sweden, children are the number one priority from the outset and parents are granted 390 days leave on 80 per cent of their salary and many countries throughout Europe and Asia offer parents maternity leave, paid at over half of their current earnings. While Australia’s tax base could not sustain such policies, especially given the recent tightening of economic conditions, there is scope to provide parents with more generous leave entitlements.

I propose funding maternity leave in an arrangement similar to the loans students accrue during their years of studying. Parents would be offered a certain number of paid childcare days each year, calculated at a set percentage of earnings. This loan would then be repaid as earnings tipped over a threshold, and would be indexed to inflation. Such a policy would encourage lasting care for children and would replace the questionable one-off baby bonus payment of $5,000. While the baby bonus has achieved the baby bounce, evidenced in the higher fertility rate, desperately sought by the previous Treasurer, it has done little to address the lack of support parents receive post-birth.

When Peter Costello pleaded with couples around Australia to procreate with abandon, he selfishly sought to secure the country’s future tax base without acknowledging the pressures that prevent parents from freely choosing how to care for their children without paying a price at work, at the bank and more broadly in society. Reproducing may secure the economic future of the nation but creating a diverse society where ideas thrive requires the creativity of individual parents, not a business where the bottom line rules.

Production lines belong in factories; children belong in the care of their unqualified, untrained but somehow most suitable creators.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Joel currently lives in Melbourne and works in consulting on social trends and demographics. He is studying his Masters in International Relations and Trade. He runs two websites: www.penslens.com where he writes about people and the world and www.voxst.com where he interviews people about themselves and the world.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Joel Bevin

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Joel Bevin
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy