A report by a free market think tank that found little evidence to support improving childcare quality has been rejected by academics and experts.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
University of Toronto professor Charles Pascal, who is in Brisbane meeting with childcare experts, said that "good evidence needs to trump ideology" and "junk science".
"The science regarding the social, emotional and cognitive impact of high-quality early learning and care on all children is unassailable."
He was responding to a Centre for Independent Studies report, released on Wednesday, questioning the changes introduced under the Gillard government in 2012
Policy analyst Trisha Jha from the think tank said the "jury is out" on whether or not the reforms will improve outcomes for children. After doing a survey of international and Australian studies, Ms Jha said that to date, people have been "too optimistic" with the evidence. She also said it was a potentially inefficient use of the taxpayer funds.
Early Childhood Australia chief executive Samantha Page dismissed the study on Thursday.
She said the Centre for Independent Studies had "not looked at the research evidence regarding the harm children experience in poor-quality programs as a result of heightened stress and the impact this has on family decision-making".
"If Australian families were to lose confidence in the early childhood services sector, the consequences socially and economically would be disastrous."
Ms Page also pointed to a study released by Early Childhood Australia earlier this week, which showed factors other than service delivery were having at least as much, if not more influence on the fees charged by long day care services.
"It's highly unlikely that daily fees would be reduced if the quality reforms were relaxed," she said.
While the quality reforms have bipartisan support, the Coalition has raised concerns they will decrease affordability for families. The Productivity Commission, in its draft report on childcare, also raised the idea of watering down the standards.
The Benevolent Society's chief executive Joanne Toohey said reducing the quality standards would deny vulnerable children access to quality early childhood education.
"One in five children starting school is 'vulnerable' in one or more areas of development. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children the rate is double this, at 43 per cent," Ms Toohey said.
"We know that early childhood education and care enhances child development and makes a significant difference to children's school readiness and performance in later life, particularly for disadvantaged children, if the services are of a high quality," said Ms Toohey.
The Centre for Independent studies issued a statement on Thursday, saying that critics of its report had either not read or understood it.
"The focus of this particular report was not to argue that quality in childcare does not matter, but to examine whether structural factors – staff-to-child ratios and staff qualifications – have a proven, meaningful and statistically significant impact on childcare quality and child outcomes," Ms Jha said.
"The review of the evidence suggests it does not."
In the wake of the Productivity Commission's draft report in July, there has been significant pushback from parents on the issue of quality.
An online survey by advocacy group The Parenthood found that 95 per cent of the 3000 parents surveyed did not want the qualification levels reduced for those working with children aged under three.
Ninety-seven per cent of parents surveyed did not support the suggestion to "average out" the ratios of educators.
