Many early childhood centres say they can't afford to access a government fund provided to improve teachers' pay parity.
Photo: 123rf
About 80 percent of respondents to a survey by the Early Childhood Council said they believed a government pay parity fund would ultimately cost them more than they afford.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced the $170 million four-year fund as part of this year's budget. It was available for ECEs to use to pay teachers, if centres align their pay with the first six steps of an 11-step pay scale already in use by kindergartens.
Opting into the scheme means new teachers would earn at least $51,358, and those with six years' experience should be on at least $65,776.
However, the Early Childhood Council said their survey showed centres estimate losses of between $14,000 and $110,000 if they accept the deal.
Despite the cost, about 40 percent of respondents said they would opt in.
Council CEO Peter Reynolds said providers indicated that accepting the offer would mean increasing parent fees, laying off teachers or support staff, asking managers to work on the floor or cutting resources or maintenance.
And while teachers deserved pay parity, he said providers trying to achieve it were being hung out to dry.
Reynolds had spoken to one centre that told him the maths just didn't add up: "They've worked out what it's going to cost them to put their teachers onto that pay parity scale. It's around $28,000 a year.
"They've worked out the funding for the share they're going to get of that $170 million, and that's about $12,000 to $12,500. The difference is what we're concerned about.
"Something's seriously wrong when there's $170 million set aside in the Budget and centres are finding it's well short of the wages cost."
Other comments made by survey respondents included: "Can't afford to lose quality teachers...also can't afford to not opt in".
While another respondent: "If we don't, we could potentially lose all our teachers. If we do, we'll have to reduce our teaching staff to minimum ratios compromising quality, or significantly increased fees to whānau - or a mixture of the two. This is a no-win, everyone loses scenario."
Reynolds said the industry had been promised more detail about the scheme, but it wasn't yet clear what it would address.
"We hope the offer is being re-worked completely. We're certainly keen to engage with officials to get this mess sorted out."
