From Essential to Expendable: The Fate of the ECT in ECEC

Once again, the early childhood sector finds itself in a state of uncertainty as the WA Government’s announcements around “free kindy” begin to sink in. Who would have thought that just a few years after COVID, we in the West would be looking back on that time with a sense of nostalgia?

During the pandemic, early learning services finally stepped out of the shadow of schools and into the spotlight. We were recognised as a profession with and of value. Suddenly, we were the glue holding society together, enabling all the other “essential services” to continue operating.

There was free care on offer, emergency funding to support struggling services, and daily news coverage that reminded the public of what we’ve always known—early childhood education and care (ECEC) is essential.

Before this moment of recognition, our battle was (and still is) to shift outdated perceptions of ECEC as a non-skilled profession where educators are seen as little more than babysitters. 

We’ve constantly fought for professional recognition, fair wages, and respect for the skilled, passionate individuals who dedicate themselves to Early Childhood Education and Care.

Those pandemic years were a turning point—but sadly, the goodwill has been short-lived.

Now, with the government’s announcement that “free access to kindy” is essential to giving children “the best start,” we see yet another blow to our sector. The kicker? This funding will be funnelled into schools, bypassing the ECEC sector—on the misguided assumption that schools are better equipped to deliver quality early years education.

Since it became mandatory to have qualified early childhood teachers (ECTs) onsite in early learning services, it’s been a constant challenge to attract and retain them. Many see working in an early learning setting as a less respected career path. The 2020 introduction of the Educational Services (Teachers) Award helped, but the struggle remains (as shown by the many waivers still in place across the country).

We had started to regain ground: the post-COVID respect, the ECA Statement on Play, and the release of EYLF 2.0 were all positive steps, and those ECTs who are passionate about high-quality, play-based, child-centred education have stayed the course and remained in early learning spaces. Why? Because in ECEC, they’re not constantly forced to compromise their practice to meet top-down pressures from schools or principals who don’t understand the complex nature of early years education.

Sadly now, these same ECTs may soon find themselves without classrooms, as funding is directed away from ECEC and into schools in a deeply misguided attempt to give 3.5-year-olds the “best possible start.”

We in the sector are left scratching our heads and asking: Please explain.

• Do we not already have qualified, registered ECTs delivering regulated, assessed, and moderated kindergarten programs in early learning services?

• Do children not already have access to Exceeding-rated services that are 100 per cent focused on high-quality, play-based, holistic learning?

• Do parents not already have access to community-focused, purpose-built ECEC options grounded in decades of research?

Sure, there are schools with fantastic early years programs—but can they all say the same?:

• Have they undergone rigorous Ratings and Assessments and been independently judged to exceed standards?

• Are they subject to regular, rigorous checks that ensure continuous quality?

• Are they meeting the same national regulations that ECEC services must uphold?

What happens when a school-based kindy falls outside a family’s catchment area or comes with hidden costs that make it inaccessible for many? What if it doesn’t reflect the cultural or community values of the families who have no choice but to send their children there?

Where is the choice? Where is the equity? This is not how schools work.

Most concerning of all is that there are voices that have been completely left out of this conversation— The very voices that should have been the loudest.

Where were the educators, the service leaders, the families, the children themselves—when these decisions were made?

Where was our seat at the table?

Was there any genuine consultation with the ECEC sector before announcing such a significant shift in funding and direction?

Has there been any consideration of the real impact this will have—not just on services, but on the dedicated professionals who run them, on the children who thrive in these environments, and on the families who rely on them?

Decisions have been made about us, not with us. A long shadow is cast again!