The Productivity Commission recently published this report which was commissioned by the Commonwealth Government to make recommendations to it that will support affordable, accessible, equitable and high-quality ECEC that reduces barriers to workforce participation and supports children’s learning and development (from the terms of reference at page v). Although the major focus of the report is on the introduction of universal childcare, the Commission also examined many other issues such as inclusion, workforce and qualification issues, affordability, and availability. In relation to regulatory responsibilities and compliance it made a number of interesting recommendations:
Recommendation 8.1
State and territory regulatory authorities should improve their performance reporting
To improve the transparency of the ECEC regulatory system, all regulatory authorities should publish an annual report detailing progress against key objectives in the previous 12-month period, including metrics on the:
• number of service assessments performed
• average time to conduct an initial assessment on a new service and average time between reassessments of services
• proportion of services with a rating and the proportion of services assessed
• proportion of services that received a visit from the regulatory authority
• number of complaints and the average time taken to investigate a complaint
• total funding for the regulatory authority
• the number of dedicated staff and number of authorised officers within the regulatory authority.
This information may be included in the relevant state government department’s annual report, and should also be collated and published by the ECEC Commission (recommendation 10.2), to make the information more accessible to governments, the ECEC sector and users of ECEC.
Recommendation 8.2
A new review of the National Quality Framework
The Australian, state and territory governments should, through the Education Ministers Meeting, commission an independent review of the National Quality Framework (NQF), with a specific focus on the way in which services are assessed against the National Quality Standard, and if assessments could be made more accurate, consistent and efficient. Independent NQF reviews should be conducted on a regular basis to enable regulators to incorporate feedback from ECEC providers as well as new findings from research on links between ECEC quality and children’s outcomes.
Recommendation 8.3
Ensure regulatory authorities are adequately resourced
The Australian Government should provide additional funding to the state and territory regulatory authorities that administer the National Quality Framework, to allow sufficient monitoring of quality and support for quality improvement. This should be guided by an independent review to determine a regulatory resourcing standard sufficient for effective quality regulation.
Recommendation 8.4
More effective communication of quality ratings
Families would benefit from more useful and more accessible information on services’ National Quality Standard ratings. The Australian, state and territory governments should amend the National Quality Framework to:
• ensure families are informed when their service receives a new quality rating
• require services to inform families of their quality rating before they enrol
• require services to include their quality rating on their website.
The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority should provide clearer and more detailed information on quality ratings on its national registers and Starting Blocks website.
Recommendation 8.5
Clear courses of regulatory action when services are Working Towards the NQS
The regulatory authorities and the Australian Children’s Education and Care Authority (ACECQA) should publish consistent guidance to the sector outlining that it is not acceptable for services to be repeatedly rated as Working Towards the National Quality Standard (NQS). When a service is rated as Working Towards the NQS, they should face a broadly consistent, escalating range of regulatory measures.
• The first instance of Working Towards the NQS should generate increased support from the regulatory authority. The service should develop a comprehensive plan to meet the NQS.
• The second consecutive rating of Working Towards the NQS should generate additional support if the service has demonstrated meaningful improvements since its previous assessment, and is willing to continue to lift quality. If the service has not made meaningful progress, the regulator should issue a compliance notice to the service provider.
• If the service has been rated as Working Towards the NQS for three consecutive assessments, and has not made meaningful progress towards meeting the NQS, the regulator should issue a compliance notice to the provider, with a financial penalty issued if the service has not made changes to meet the NQS by the end of the compliance notice period. If the service has not made significant progress towards meeting the NQS following a financial penalty, the service approval should be suspended. If a service has not resolved its issues by the end of the service approval suspension period, the approval should be cancelled.
Recommendation 8.6
Powers for regulators to issue compliance notices to underperforming services
The Education and Care Services National Law (2010) should be amended to allow regulators to issue a compliance notice when a service is repeatedly rated as Working Towards the National Quality Standard (NQS) and is not making meaningful progress towards meeting the NQS. This would include the power to issue financial penalties if the compliance notice is not successful in compelling the service to meet the NQS or make significant progress towards meeting the NQS.
In support of some of these recommendations the Commission observed (page 26):
The regulation of ECEC is carried out by state and territory authorities, supported by ACECQA. State and territory authorities take different approaches to facilitating quality improvement – some have the resourcing and capacity to work with services to improve their ratings, but this is not always the case. There is limited transparency around the actions that regulatory authorities take to improve ECEC quality and ‘check in’ with services, beyond formal assessments. Improved reporting should provide better transparency around measures taken to improve quality and resolve complaints received from families and educators.
Regulatory authorities operate in different ways with various levels of resourcing, giving rise to significant differences across jurisdictions in the timeliness of assessments. More funding and better policy alignment would promote more consistent outcomes. While efforts are underway to address some of these issues, their effectiveness is not yet clear. An independent review of the regulatory authorities should determine the resourcing standard sufficient for effective quality regulation and the Australian Government should provide funding to meet the standard. A review of the NQF should seek to identify opportunities for further improvement.
The regulatory system has adequate tools to deal with serious breaches of safety, but it rarely takes proactive action against services that are repeatedly found to be ‘Working Towards the NQS’. ACECQA and the state and territory authorities should clarify their standards to state that repeatedly not meeting the NQS is not acceptable. ECEC services that receive a ‘working towards’ rating for the first time should develop a comprehensive quality improvement plan and receive support to implement it. If they fail to demonstrate improved quality after three consecutive assessments, the service should face compliance action, which should include a cancellation of service approval if other measures are unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities may also need to use a greater range of penalties and enforcement tools to address concerns about persistently poor quality.
Comments