Getting the balance right - universal versus targeted funding

Getting the balance right: universal versus targeted funding

When responses to the ECE Taskforce Report ‘An Agenda for Amazing Children’ were called, we - along with over three thousands others - made a submission.  We put forward our views and acknowledged the Taskforce for bringing together the wide body of research on the benefits of ECE and for advocating increased government investment in high quality ECE.

While we support a number of the Taskforce’s recommendations, we have some concerns about what is proposed, particularly the proposal to introduce a new funding system. The Taskforce recommends that the current 20 hours ECE be replaced by a subsidy, that parents pay more, and that funding shifts to target the individual circumstances of families in certain communities – low socio-economic, Maori and Pasifika.  

NZK believes every child has the right to participate in high quality early childhood education. Our position is clear. We support a universal funding system complemented by additional targeted funding, where needed, that further supports children and families. A universal system recognises that all children benefit from participating in ECE.

Universal funding ensures all ECE services have the security of funding they need to provide and develop services, meet communities’ needs, make improvements and continue to meet high quality standards. For kindergarten, universal funding means children have access to a high quality ECE service in their own community.   

NZK believes the funding system should ensure equitable access to high quality ECE for all children and families. The Taskforce’s rationale for targeted funding is to increase participation, but shifting costs to parents will mean many of the families of children currently attending an ECE service could no longer afford to do so.

We currently have a mix of universal and targeted funding. The equity funding model has worked well for those targeted under that system, and the schools decile rating system represents another successful model. Both of these systems are based on community characteristics rather than individual, family circumstances. They are transparent funding systems, cost effective, and importantly, do not isolate or stigmatise children and families. 

Simply encouraging children and families into ECE may meet the government’s aim to increase participation, but it is the quality of the service that makes the positive difference for all children and families. As the government considers the responses to the Taskforce recommendations, we need to make sure they take that into account.