While there may be some consensus around the need for simplifying some of the myriad requirements for licensed centres, not all in the sector agree on the fledgling regulation ministry’s review findings, which could result in almost three-quarters of the licensing criteria removed, changed, or merged.
The tone of the review report is such readers might wonder if it is addressing part of our education system which attracts public funding or a purely commercial operation where the market reigns supreme.
The message seems to be that by removing what is called excessive and confusing regulations, beefing up enforcement powers, and improving information for would-be users of services, early childhood education service providers will thrive and be able to innovate and the market will be freed up to offer great choices for everyone.
It is difficult not to be sceptical.
Of particular concern to many in the sector is the recommendation for more flexibility in qualifications to get more teachers into the sector and also to help those centres, often in rural settings, where it may be hard to attract staff.
Those who have been fighting for years for a better qualified ECE workforce because of its impact on quality are understandably worried.
Mr Seymour has already dismissed this as fearmongering.
We can appreciate the difficulties some areas face in attracting qualified staff, but academics in the field say any suggestion of dumbing down requirements flies in the face of what is best for educating our tamariki in their important formative years.
They say teacher qualifications are key in determining the quality of children’s experience.
Finding it acceptable to have staff with lower standards of training in some places suggests it is OK for some children to have a less than ideal service.
We might have expected Mr Seymour, with his insistence on everyone being equal, would find this distasteful.
Before the last election there were calls for a thorough examination of whether the government spending on ECE, now $2.8 billion, was delivering the best bang for our buck.
This review is not that, although it does tell us the "Ministry of Education is currently developing the plan for undertaking a separate review of ECE funding".
It would have been more efficient and sensible to conduct both reviews together.
In recent years, ECE provision has moved from mainly community and not-for-profit centres to become dominated by big commercial chains.
But while the New Zealand government is providing one of the highest rates of per capita funding for ECE in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, childcare is less affordable here than elsewhere.
It would be great if some changes to regulation altered that, but we would be surprised.
The National Party’s badly planned FamilyBoost ECE policy has not eased the pressure on parents as hoped either.
Voters were told it would give relief of up to $75 a week for families earning less than $180,00, but it has been revealed only 249 families have been consistently receiving the full $75.
Last year Finance Minister Nicola Willis said about 21,000 families would receive the full amount.
Also, it seems fewer than 50 families are likely to have receive National’s full $252 fortnightly tax break because of the lower-than-expected uptake of the FamilyBoost scheme, many fewer than the touted 3000 during the election campaign.
Mr Seymour’s regulation plans have escaped intensive public scrutiny so far, but that will not last, with consultation over the proposed changes to begin soon and legislation expected to be before Parliament in July.
Whether the plans will stand up to that scrutiny remains to be seen, but Mr Seymour will be hoping they will not prove as controversial as his school lunch programme cost-cutting.
