The long-awaited policy on early childhood development (ECD) is not all it was hoped to be. Julia Grey reports
Critics of the ECD white paper, released in May, believe weaknesses in the government’s plan ”takes provisioning backwards rather than forwards”.
So says Salim Vally from the Education Policy Unit at Wits University, who identifies ”children living in deepest poverty and children under age five” as those most likely to fall through the cracks in the policy.
The policy’s main thrust is to provide a reception year for five-year-olds, while making only the vaguest statement about plans to provide ECD for younger children.
The reason, says director of ECD in the DoE, Marie-Louise Samuels, is that ”We don’t have the budget for this”. Samuels cites financial constraints as the reason for many perceived weaknesses in the plan: the 10-year implementation period, which many see as far too long; and the proposed subsidy system, which critics say fits into the DoE’s budget only because it exploits ECD practitioners (see page 3 for the full story).
Eric Atmore from the Centre for Early Childhood Development (CEDC) believes this lack of funding compromises the entire initiative: ”All the vision is there in the White Paper, all the principles – but these are only as good as the money invested in them,” he says.
But some critics even take the vision to task. Vally slams the DoE’s long-term goal to minimise the role of community-based ECD sites by phasing in Grade R at public primary schools. ”It is not only killing off community initiatives,” says Vally, ”but is placing more pressure on primary schools without providing the necessary resources.”
Community-based sites currently provide about 80% of all ECD. The DoE plans to reduce their involvement to a mere 15% by 2010.
Leonard Saul from the South African Congress for Early Childhood Development, which represents the 81 NGOs supporting the ECD sector across South Africa, is concerned about the DoE’s lack of consultation with the NGO sector – which has long been the backbone of providing ECD – in arriving at this policy.
Samuels has little sympathy for this view, saying, ”We consulted with all the bodies we were obliged to – provincial departments, teacher unions and school governing bodies. Ultimately, the DoE has the right to determine policy and has done just that.” She believes the rumbling from the NGO sector is because of their own reluctance to face up to change: ”There is clearly no willingness from the NGO sector to think differently about what they are doing,” says Samuels.
But politicking aside, crucial doubts persist about whether the DoE’s approach – with its limited budget, limited focus and limited support – can make a positive difference to providing ECD. Vally asks: ”Is this [policy] better than the opposite danger of children being left to their own devices to play and explore in a dangerous world?”
Key points from the early childhood development policy
What is ECD: Early childhood development (ECD) is an umbrella term that applies to the processes by which children younger than 10 grow physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, morally and socially.
Why ECD matters:
Many brain structures and biochemical routes are developed in the first two years of life
During the second year of life, a child’s brain will reach 50% of its adult weight. By age five, the brain will have grown to 90% of its adult weight
In conditions of poverty, there is a high risk of young children suffering from irreversible brain damage and stunted physical development
Research in the United States showed that for every R1 invested in the physical and cognitive development of babies and toddlers, there is a R7 return, mainly from cost savings in the future (including health and remedial costs, and repeating grades).
The current ECD picture:
In a Unicef report on The State of the World’s Children 2001, South Africa is ranked 66th behind countries such as Botswana, Mexico and Libya. The critical indicator used to assess the well-being of children was the mortality rate of children younger than five
There are 23 482 community-based ECD sites in South Africa
The Eastern and Northern Cape have the fewest ECD sites
About one million of an estimated six million children up to age six are enrolled in some kind of ECD programme
Only 40% of sites are in rural settings, and children on farms are the worst off
There are about 55 000 ECD practitioners and child minders, 99% of whom are women. They earn an average of about R600 per month.
Key areas the policy intends to address:
The extent of ECD provision
Inequality in existing ECD provision
Inequality of access to ECD services
The incomplete and fragmented policy and legislative framework that results in an uncoordinated delivery of ECD services.
A three-part system for five-year-olds in reception year:
Establish grade R in all 23 000 public primary schools
Develop reception-year programmes within community-based sites
Independent provision of reception-year programmes to continue.
Funding of the three models:
A subsidy for resources and the ECD practitioner’s salary to come from provincial coffers for sites at primary schools. These grants-in-aid will be made per-learner and be paid directly to the school’s governing body
R195-million has been committed by the national treasury for 4 500 community-based sites. The money will be spent over three years.
No subsidies from the government for independent ECD sites. For the 0 – 4 year olds:
No detailed plan at present
Begin to coordinate the Departments of Education, Social Development, Health, Local Government and the Office of the Presidency to meet their needs holistically.
Timeframes and targets:
3 000 community-based sites to be developed from January 2002. An additional 1 500 sites will be targeted by 2003
Community-based sites will be expected to accommodate a maximum of 135 000 children
Provinces will incrementally establish Grade R classes at public primary schools. The aim is that by 2010, 85% of all five- year-olds (about 810 000) will be accommodated at primary schools
By 2010, all children entering Grade One should have participated in an accredited reception-year programme.
– The Teacher/M&G Media, Johannesburg, December 2001.