ELC and SAC system reform

SJI, Barnardos, Pobal, ECI, Ibec and the ICTU recommended ensuring the allocation of sufficient resources to fund a new sustainable model for the provision of quality, affordable and accessible childcare. Barnardos, Pobal, the CIB, and Ibec suggested that there are additional strains on disadvantaged families due to the pandemic, with access to affordable childcare playing a key role in tackling disadvantage. This provides benefits for children and parents - particularly mothers - who are enabled to return to work/increase working hours. In this regard, Ibec called for the implementation of a formal out-of-school hours care system to address the needs of working parents. Ibec also highlighted that “many [childcare] providers are struggling to sustain businesses under significant administration, inspection and regulation demands and increasing commercial rates and insurance costs”.

Pobal and ECI called for a strategic approach to stakeholder engagement, incorporating feedback into the reform of the ELC/SAC system. The DES and DSP called for continued collaboration on key issues related to ELC and SAC, such as access for Traveller and migrant children, in order to improve school readiness and education outcomes. The DES also recommended taking the NCCA review of the Aistear early childhood curriculum framework into account in the preparation of the SoS, as well as subsequent action plans. DFA expressed a commitment to working with this Department to ensure the quality of the Irish contribution to the OECD’s Network on ‘Early Childhood Education and Care’ (ECED).

Pobal called for the SoS to place “significant focus on objectives that spearhead effective leadership capabilities and builds unity of purpose across ELSAC stakeholders” in order to deliver “a fit-for-purpose Childcare Ireland agency that is effective in mobilising and managing positive change”. The DHLGH suggested that National Policy Objective 31 and National Strategic Outcomes 1 and 10 under the National Planning Framework (which relate to access to quality childcare) are considered and factored into the SoS. DHLGH recommended close collaboration with the Department in the implementation of the National Childcare Scheme to ensure that the planning policy and legal framework can link supply of childcare facilities to anticipated demand.

ECI recommended that the SoS should commit to developing and publishing a whole-of- Government plan to “implement the Project 2040 goal on Access to Quality Childcare, Education and Health Services”. They suggested that this plan should take ELC “as part of the educational continuum, and not just invest in services that provide childcare to parents”. ECI suggested that an expansion of the current infrastructure of ELC provision “may be more costly to the government”, will “perpetuate the administrative burden that providers have to deal with on a daily basis”, and “may not lead to increased wages and sustainability”.

ECI listed recommendations for developing an alternative publically funded system, including giving children the “legal right to a place from the time paid parental leave comes to an end”; implementing “administrative and governance structures at a local level to support the system”; giving providers the choice to enter the system; allowing providers to “retain managerial control over settings”; and making AIM supports “available to all eligible children”.

IDEA and GOWC suggested that attention is given to the transition between early years and infant education for “development education” purposes. Similarly, IDEA called for increased coherence and resourcing of “development education” during this time period, and the development of a longterm research agenda to establish a strong evidence base for “development education” in the Early Years and Youth sectors. DFA wrote that: “Development education also has an important contribution to make to integration and the roll out of the Migrant Integration Policy”.