Submission 4247 — Ms Kate Alexander (Attachment 5) — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

New South Wales

Department of Education

June 2021

More than ‘just convenient care’: what the research tells us about equitable access to outside school hours care

Report prepared by:

Associate Professor Jennifer Cartmel and Dr Bruce Hurst

Griffith University, Brisbane

Author contact details 0420 153 7387 / 07 3382 1236 j.cartmel@griffith.edu.au ian.hurst@unimelb.edu.au

Report citation More than ‘just convenient care’: what the research tells us about equitable access to outside school hours care

1. Executive Summary             2     4.5 OSHC and school partnerships          15

Critical partnership between OSHC and schools 15

2. Introduction                  4                                                         Case study: Swedish approach to OSHC and

school management – a national curriculum 16

3. Methodology                 4                                                                     Implications for priority groups             16

4. Findings                     5                                                  4.6 OSHC Workforce                   16

A constantly changing workforce 16 4.1 The development of Before and After

Professional Standards for Outside SchoolSchool Care in Australia 5

Hours Care 17

Government regulation of OSHC in Australia 6 Summary 18 My Time, Our Place – The approved learning

framework for Before and After School Care     7     5. Conclusion and recommendations  19

4.2 Priority groups in OSHC               8                                              6. References                    21

Defining ‘priority groups’ 8

Who uses Outside School Hours Care?         9     7. Appendices                   24

Government programs 10

What sort of OSHC program?              11     8. Glossary                      28

International programs for priority groups 12 Should older children be considered a priority group? 12 Summary 12

4.3 The benefits of OSHC 13

Research into Benefits of OSHC for children 13 Research from Early Childhood 13 Possible benefits for children from priority groups 13

4.4 The image of OSHC 13

‘Just care’ 13 ‘Not core business’ 14 A place of fun and friendship 14

How Outside School Hours Care is

viewed matters 15

Executive Summary Outside school hours care (OSHC) is a This report has a particular focus on equitable and inclusive access for children and each of these elements deserve significant site of care, play and learning attention to ensure that all children benefit from OSHC and for children aged five to twelve years in New parents feel supported to utilise the services. Attention South Wales, Australia. There has been an is given to the Swedish educare system which has a more increased level of demand for care linked seamless approach to schooling and OSHC provision. to workforce participation particularly of Recommendations include more research about the OSHC women. The growth in New South Wales as a site for children’s development and the partnerships between OSHC, schools and families. In particular the services mirrors national and international focus will be on children from vulnerable circumstances trends. The growth of services also has the such as those at risk of abuse or neglect, of working potential to support the development and sole parents and families requiring additional support to help raise their children. A deeper understanding aboutwellbeing of children when its value as a the value of OSHC will enhance community perceptions site of play and learning is recognised. and commitment to the utilisation of services to contribute to children’s wellbeing and development. OSHC services include school age child care services that operate before and after school (BASC) and during vacation periods. OSHC services have a high level of systemic complexity as they address the expectations of children, families and the wider community. Using a review of academic and grey literature the authors have gathered evidence that suggests that quality OSHC provision for children in an interplay between the following elements:
The benefits of OSHC to stakeholders
The image of OSHC
The partnership between OSHC and schools
The workforce delivering OSHC service. 2

Table 1 – Recommendations from Academic Literature Review

Focus area         Recommendation                  Suggested implementation

Supporting specific    1 More research needs to be          NSW Department of education should cross-

priority groups         conducted in partnership with               collaborate with internal departmental directorates

while acknowledging    priority groups to better understand        to develop co-designed pilots within the OSHC

that each group has      their engagement with OSHC.              sector (lead policy objectives for pilots).

unique complexities

that make ‘easy’      2 More research needs to be          NSW Department of Education should prioritise cultural

answers elusive        conducted in partnership with                inclusion and professional development in relation to

in terms of               Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander         better supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

access, inclusion,        families to better understand                 families in developing applicable grant programs.

participation. their engagement with OSHC.

Exploring how the     3 Greater awareness needs to be       NSW Department of Education should:

benefits (other         created about the educational and        • trial resource toolkits to support OSHC providers inform

than workplace         developmental benefits of OSHC.               their communities of benefits via department website.

productivity) • work with sector stakeholders such as peak and functions bodies to discuss ways to promote benefits. of OSHC can be

communicated                    4 Research needs to be conducted       NSW Department of Education should develop collaborative

to families.                             into the educational and                        initiatives with the early childhood education directorate

developmental benefits of OSHC. and schools directorate, with input from the OSHC sector, to support further research and strategic projects.

Promoting OSHC      5 Explore ways to promote OSHC as a    NSW Department of Education should trial resource

as a site of play           site of play and friendship to children.        toolkits specifically designed to support OSHC

and friendship providers to incorporate opportunities to build play

rather than ‘just      6 Support OSHC services to                  into their programs via department website.

convenient care’ improve their approaches to working with older children.

Supporting          7 Review existing inclusion supports        Future work conducted by the NSW Department

children with             for mainstream OSHC services to build      of Education BASC Reform Design and Delivery

additional needs        the capacity of services to care for        team should incorporate the considerations of

children with high support needs. this Review into its planned approach to solutions (onsite, transport access, NDIS support, etc). 8 Explore possible benefits of providing transportation between specialist schools and mainstream OSHC.

9 Explore increased provision of OSHC at specialist schools.

OSHC perception      10 Greater awareness needs to be         The NSW Department of Education BASC Policy team should:

and image              created about the educational and        • work with its Schools directorate to develop

developmental benefits of OSHC with policy objectives that support school leadership school principals and management. teams to ‘shift mindsets’ in relation to OSHC.

explore ways to work with universities to develop 11 Explore ways of supporting school courses about partnerships between OSHC and principals to recognise the benefits Schools available to principals and OSHC coordinators/ of positive partnerships with OSHC providers as part of Master of Education/MBA. coordinators and providers.

OSHC Workforce 12 Introduce the use of Professional NSW Department of Education should:

Standards for OSHC educators. • consider ways to disseminate the Professional Standards for OSHC Educators to all services with 13 Review the qualification suggestions for implementation within services. requirements for OSHC services • form a working group to review, develop and consider to ensure that the workforce has mandating qualifications for the OSHC workforce. the skills and knowledge to care for • collaborate with education and training providers to children with high support needs. ensure recognition of the importance of field placement.

Introduction 3. Methodology This literature review is a scoping of Australian and Using a preliminary research paper written by the NSW international literature to provide comparative national Department of Education as a foundation, the authors and international approaches towards OSHC access undertook a systematic literature review examining and provision, highlighting best practice and innovative approaches to equitable and inclusive access within OSHC approaches to facilitate equitable and inclusive access. services. A combination of peer-reviewed articles, grey The review also provides practical and relevant literature, Government and policy documents was used recommendations for next steps to help OSHC providers, due to limited relevant research available about Australian schools and parents to support children to access care, OSHC services. The literature was sourced electronically particularly those from the identified priority cohorts. and identified by searching the Griffith University library databases for example Informit (Humanities and Social

Science Collection and the Health Collection), Proquest

(Academic Research Library, Health and Medical Complete,

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Cambridge

Journals Online, Expanded Academic (ASAP), PsychINFO,

Australian Government and Politics database, SAGE

Journals Online, EBSCO Host, Australian Journals Online,

ISI Web of Knowledge, OECD Publications Online, and

Web of Science. The search terms included the following “Outside School Hours Care”, “School Age Care”, “Educare”, “Fritidshem”, “early childhood education AND inclusion”, and “early childhood education AND priority access”.

The review has been organised into the following themes. These themes emerged from the literature cited in this review:

The development of Outside School Hours Care in Australia
Priority groups in Outside School Hours Care
The benefits of Outside School Hours Care
The image of Outside School Hours Care
Professional partnerships in Outside School Hours Care
The Outside School Hours Care workforce. 4

Findings 4.1 The development of Before and OSHC serves multiple purposes. According to Hurst (2019) these purposes have experienced ongoing transformation

After School Care in Australia since its inception. In a contemporary, Australian context, OSHC serves three main functions: safety, play and education. Before and After School Care (BASC) services operate in the Government regards OSHC as primarily a service that provides hours before and after primary school, and serve a range safe custodial care of children to support parents’ workforce of functions centred on providing custodial care of children participation. However, OSHC is increasingly also seen as on behalf of parents who are mostly working or studying. a site of play and education, purposes that are foremost in BASC is part of a broader suite of services called Outside My Time Our Place, Australia’s curriculum framework for School Hours Care (OSHC). OSHC includes vacation care

OSHC (Australian Government Department of Education

and curriculum day programs that operate on pupil-free Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2011b). days and school holidays as well as before and after school hours sessions. For the purpose of this review, the primary The Framework acknowledges the term used will be OSHC. Almost all research investigates importance of play and leisure in OSHC more broadly rather than drawing distinctions children’s learning and developmentbetween its various components. When appropriate, research relating specifically to BASC will be identified. and that their learning is not limited to any particular time or place (p. 3) The provision of OSHC has a long history in Australia. Cartmel (2007) explains that activities have been provided Whilst the care-based workforce function is no doubt after school since the early 20th century. These early important from an economic perspective, this should not programs differ from contemporary services in that they trivialise the role of OSHC in relation to play and education. were recreational rather than focused on care. Care- Safety, play and education are all recognised as rights in focused programs began to grow in the early 1980s with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child increasing participation of women in the workplace (Brennan, (UNCRC), a treaty to which Australia is signatory (United 1994; Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). Nations, 1989). Some children spend up to 5.5 hours per day in OSHC, highlighting its importance in providing a setting The number of OSHC settings and children participating for play and education in the hours outside school (Network, in OSHC has grown rapidly in popularity over the last four 2000). Children in particular value OSHC for the play it decades (Baxter, Hand, & Sweid, 2014; Winefield et al., provides, stating that fun and friends are the factors they 2011). According to the Report on Government Services enjoy most (Hurst, 2013, 2017; Simoncini, Cartmel, & Young, 2020, approximately 459,730 children aged between 6-12 2015). Once again, Article 12 of the UNCRC is a reminder attended Australian Government CCS approved child care that children’s views about OSHC are important and demand services in 2019. This is around 27% higher than attendance consideration. The purposes performed by OSHC services, figures of 362,123 for the same age group five years as well as how these services are perceived by children and earlier in 2014, and almost 80% higher from 2010 figures families, are critical in this review given its examination of (257,724). For NSW, approximately 148,665 children aged how more families can benefit from participation. These between 6-12 attended Government CCS approved child aspects will be explored in more detail later in the review. care services in 2019, which is 37% higher attendance than in 2014 figures of 108,222 and approximately 85 per cent The ways in which OSHC is delivered can differ greatly across higher than attendance recorded for 2010 (68,403). settings. In NSW, approximately 68% of OSHC services are located on government and non-government school With these figures only accounting for children aged six

grounds (National Quality Authority IT System). Services

and older, accessing approved service child care subsidies, often operate in makeshift spaces that are adapted but it is likely that the figure could be somewhat higher. not designed for the delivery of OSHC. In some instances, However, this is nonetheless a significant number of OSHC services share a space with other school programs Australian primary-age children attending OSHC; across which requires OSHC staff to set up and take down program most Australian states and territories, these figures point materials and resources each day (Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel to around a 20% proportion of the estimated resident & Grieshaber, 2014). Services are operated by a range of population, which is almost double the proportion from a possible agencies. Whilst some services are managed and decade earlier. In the context of this review, it is uncertain delivered by schools, the marketised approaches adopted by what proportion of these children are from priority groups successive federal governments means that OSHC appears (these groups will be defined in a dedicated section). to be increasingly delivered by large corporate providers.

Services are also often delivered by church parishes, local to programming typically adopted in Australian OSHC but governments, parent committees of management (Hurst, also a recognition of the role that OSHC plays in supporting 2017). In NSW government school sites, management and children’s development. Swedish services are very similar operation of OSHC is currently determined by a competitive to Australian services, which is important for this review. A tender process that opens management to a range of significant percentage of contemporary research into OSHC providers (NSW Government, 2019). According to the is performed by Swedish academics, which means their ACECQA National Register and TimeSeries Splits, 30.12% of work can provide valuable insights for Australian contexts. all OSHCs in NSW are delivered by single-service Approved Consequently, this review draws on some Swedish literature Providers. This is marginally down from 33.79% in Q3 where relevant, acknowledging of course that there are

As at Q2 2020, 53.02% of all OSHCs were managed some important distinctions between the two cultures. by a private for profit, compared to 35.17% in 2014. Government regulation of OSHC in Australia It is important to recognise that there is no single way to OSHC services are subject to the same system of regulationconceptualise and deliver OSHC. Before and after school and monitoring as early childhood education and careprograms are delivered in many countries including Sweden, services such as Long Day Care, Preschool and Family DayDenmark, the US, England, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, Care, although there are important differences. RegulationsSouth Korea, Japan, Singapore, Iceland, Norway and Canada are relatively new to OSHC. The sector was first subject(Bae, 2018; Hurst, 2020a). The types of program delivery to accreditation when it was a late addition to the Qualityemerge from each country’s unique cultural, historical and Improvement and Accreditation Scheme in 2004, joiningpolitical contexts (Bae, 2018; Hurst, 2017). ‘Extended a number of years after other early childhood serviceeducation’ is being increasingly adopted as a universal types (see Figure 1 Timeline). In 2009, OSHC joined earlyterm by most academics who research OSHC settings. childhood services in the National Quality FrameworkIt is not possible to capture the diverse modes of OSHC (NQF), which was the centrepiece of the early childhoodprovision globally in the context of this review. Helpful reforms introduced by the Rudd federal government.summaries are provided by Hurst (2020a) and Bae (2018), who attempts to categories different models of extended The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority education, some of which are summarised in Table 2. (ACECQA) now oversees the NQF (2019). The NQF consists of a number of components, each of which govern some Table 2: International categories of OSHC provision aspect of OSHC provision. The National Law provides a set (Bae, 2018) of universal standards that services are required to meet. Due to Australia’s federated system of government, there

Mode of        Characteristics          Examples     can be differences in laws across states and territories. All

provision states and territories except WA are subject to the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010. In addition, each

School aged       Custodial care             Sweden          jurisdiction has its own supplementary laws and regulations.

educare           Child-driven, play-         Denmark

In NSW, OSHC is subject to the Children (Education and Care

based curriculum          UK                                                                Services National Law Application) Act 2010 (ACECQA,

Holistic view of children’s      Australia                                                       2019). The National Laws are supported by National                  development

Regulations and these apply mostly to the minimum safety and physical requirements that services are required to meet.

After school       Custodial care             US

They cover matters such as safety standards and processes,

programs         Structured activities         Canada                                                                      staff ratios and qualifications, and space requirements. In

that aim to support addition to laws and regulations, services are also subject academic achievement to the National Quality Standard (NQS). The NQS provides a particularly for marginalised communities series of benchmarks spread across seven Quality Areas that are considered necessary for quality outcomes for young

All day schools    Custodial care             Germany        children. In addition to health and safety outcomes, the

NQS also makes provision for children’s learning outcomes, partnerships with families, service governance, physical

Supplementary   Academic programs          Korea          environments, curriculum and pedagogical practices (ACECQA,

education         to supplement school         Japan         2019). In addition, OSHC services are also required to apply

programs education. E.g. tutoring the pedagogical principles outlined in My Time, Our Place, and cram schools Framework for School Age Care in Australia (DEEWR, 2011b).

All registered OSHC services are subject to regularAustralian OSHC belongs to Bae’s ‘school age educare’ assessment against National Law and Regulations and thecategory which applies the Swedish term for OSHC. Services NQS by state regulatory authorities and overseen by ACECQA.of this type are characterised by the play-based approach

1991 Report 2004 Shared

‘A stitch in time’,                                                      Visions for OSHC              2011 My Time                2019

recommends that                 2003                       children have a right                Our Place                    National Quality

OSHC and schools                  National OSHC                   to be consulted                Framework for                Framework

be separate entities                  Accreditation                about programming                School Age Care                  Review

1995 National                    Uncapping                2009 National              2011 Play leisure

Standards for                    of Child Care                   Quality Standards,              and learning-focal

OSHC                        Benefit places                   Education Act                     activities of OSHC

Figure 1: Timeline of key events in the development of the OSHC system in Australia

Whilst the NQF aims to ensure universally high quality education and care for children, its efficacy is disputed. Some entities regard the currently regulatory regime as expensive and a barrier to participation for some families (Australian

Government Productivity Commission, 2014a). Some of

these implications will be considered later in this review.

My Time, Our Place – The approved learning framework for Before and After School Care

One of the most significant developments in OSHC in the last 30 years was the development and introduction of My Time, Our Place (the MTOP Framework), the first ever learning framework for Australian OSHC services. The MTOP Framework plays a significant role in this review. As a central component of the NQF, the principles and knowledge it contains are a pivotal influence on the practices of OSHC workers. The MTOP Framework drew upon contemporary OSHC and early childhood research to outline the many ways that high quality OSHC provides more than ‘just’ care (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). The

Figure 2: Elements of MTOP Framework for School Age

MTOP Framework recognises that alongside other children’s Care (DEEWR, 2011b) – Corrected diagram, 2014) settings, OSHC provides children with opportunities to maximise their potential and develop a foundation for future This review will not explore each of these Principles,success in life. The MTOP Framework is conceptualised Practices and Learning Outcomes in detail. It operates fromas providing a holistic approach to OSHC pedagogy. the assumption that each element is fundamental to the A school age care program encompass all question of how to improve access to OSHC for high priority the interactions, experiences, routines and groups. The most relevant details of the MTOP Framework will be drawn upon to inform analysis and discussion. events, planned and unplanned, which occur in an environment designed to support It is tempting when considering questions of access to wellbeing and foster children’s learning prioritise the operational, practical details, such as pricing of services, physical infrastructure and availability of spaces, and development (DEEWR, 2011b, p. 6). but the holistic view promoted by the MTOP Framework The MTOP Framework provides a universal set of is a reminder that human factors are just as relevant. For intersecting Principles, Practice and Learning Outcomes example, the following are all of direct relevance when to guide the practices of OSHC professionals (Figure 2). considering the diverse requirements of priority groups:

Principle 1: Providing children with secure, services. In doing so, it provides a foundation and rationale respectful and reciprocal relationships for the rest of the literature review, introducing its founding
Principle 2: Working in partnership with assumptions about why access to OSHC is important. families and school communities Defining ‘priority groups’
Principle 4: Having respect for diverse family contexts, practices, values and beliefs The notion of a priority group has long-standing acceptance in Australian education and care services. For at least the
Practice: Ongoing critical reflection and evaluation of the past two decades, up until 2018, the Australian Government ways that professionals work with children and families, had a set of published Priority of Access Guidelines for and the environments they provide (DEEWR, 2011b). federally funded child care services, including OSHC. The One of the requirements of Australia’s regulatory regime is 2010-11 version of the guidelines mandated that services that OSHC services use a recognised learning framework ensure priority of access to the following groups: to inform their practices (ACECQA, 2019). The MTOP Priority 1—a child at risk of serious abuse or neglect Framework is not prescriptive. It provides a broad set of principles around which professionals form their practices in Priority 2—a child of a single parent who satisfies, ways that meet the unique requirements of their families, or of parents who both satisfy, the work, training, schools and communities (DEEWR, 2011b). Whilst OSHC study test under section 14 of the A New Tax services are able to use other learning frameworks such as the System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 Early Years Learning Framework, the vast majority of services Priority 3—any other child.found their practice on the sector-specific OSHC Framework (ACECQA, 2011b). All recommendations in this review will Within these main categories, priority should therefore account for the MTOP Framework and its contents. also be given to the following children:

The MTOP Framework is also accompanied by supporting • children in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families

documents. The Educators’ Guide to the Framework for • children in families which include a disabled person

School Age Care in Australia (DEEWR, 2012a) adds important

children in families which include an individual whosedetail to support understanding and implementation of the adjusted taxable income does not exceed the lower incomePrinciples, Practices and Learning Outcomes. There is also threshold or who or whose partner are on income supportPromoting Collaborative Partnerships Between School Age

Care Services and Schools (DEEWR, 2012b), a text that seeks • children in families with a non-English speaking background

to provide guidance on how to collaborate positively with • children in socially isolated families

schools and school management bodies, an issue that has • children of single parents (DEEWR, 2011a, p. 68).

impacted on school age care delivery for decades (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). It is noted that between 2019-2020, In the 2010-11 version of the Child Care Services Handbook, the NSW Department of Education partnered with Early ‘priority’ was defined as belonging to a group most in need of Childhood Australia to provide a free, online program to all care. In the current version of the guidelines, the mandated OSHC educators which focuses on unpacking the MTOP aspect of the guidelines have been removed by the Australian Framework (Note: the program is currently under review). Government, instead opening it up to services to ‘set their own rules for deciding who receives a place’ (Australian Whilst stakeholders within the OSHC sector are mostly Government Department of Education Skills and Employment, accepting of the principles in the MTOP Framework and 2019, p. 51). The current version of the Handbook instead the holistic view it takes of the purpose of OSHC services, applies a looser definition, naming children at risk of abuse it is also worth noting that not all stakeholders share this and neglect, children of working sole parents, and children perspective. Simoncini et al. (2015, p. 116) point out of families ‘most at need’ as ‘priority’ groups (p. 51). that “community perceptions have yet to catch up to this vision of SAC (OSHC)”. Five years since the publication of These two definitions of priority appear to be informed this paper, this review ponders whether this perception by two distinct principles. The first is that parents require altered significantly in 2020, particularly with the effects custodial care for their children whilst they are working or of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a significant, studying and therefore unable to care for them. The second is even devastating, impact on the provision of OSHC. that there are identified groups in Australian society who are considered vulnerable and whose children would most benefit from being placed in institutional care. Certainly, these two 4.2 Priority groups in OSHC principles intersect and are not entirely divorced. However, the first is mostly concerned with economic concerns and This section provides a background on what this review refers OSHC’s role in supporting workforce participation. The second to as ‘priority groups’ and OSHC. It summarises the available is concerned with mitigating the effects of disadvantage literature with respect to priority groups to better understand and marginalisation. This review concerns itself mostly what is currently known about their engagement with OSHC with the second cohort, defining ‘priority groups’ as those

2016 Introduction of Inclusion Support Program (ISP) - building the capacity Pre 2006 and capability of educators to plan for Supplementary inclusion, encouraging less reliance on services worker funding support from the Inclusion (SUPS) program Development Fund (IDF)

2006 Introduction 2017 Introduction of National of the Inclusion and Disability Insurance Scheme Professional Support (NDIS) - unclear arrangements Program (IPSP) between OSHC NDIS, Education and Care vs Disability

Figure 3: Timeline of the signature features of inclusion support

families who experience varying types of disadvantage and for children in households with the highest equivalised exclusion and their children who are most at risk of poor incomes (Rioseco et al., 2017). This is replicated in developmental and educational outcomes. The reasons for family structures with families where both parents work this will be made clear in the remainder of this section. amongst the most likely to attend and those where no parents work the least likely. However, the group where a The development of these responses to priority groups child is most likely to attend is in sole parent households was paralleled with the development of systemic approach where the mother works full time. This demonstrates known as inclusion support. Since the 1990s, there that whilst income appears most significant although not have been a succession of federally-funded inclusion necessarily causational, there are other complexities that support programs, which are depicted in Figure 3 and motivate parents to use OSHC. The importance of income described in greater detail later in the review. manifests in other ways. Children from the wealthiest Who uses Outside School Hours Care? third of government schools are 4.8 times more likely to attend than the poorest third (Rioseco et al., 2017). There is little denying that working parents need OSHC. However, as a cohort, this group are already the most There appears to be a contradiction in that children prominent users of OSHC. Families where both parents work from government schools are twice as likely to attend are currently the most likely to use OSHC, whereas those compared to those from private schools. However, the where no parent works are amongst the least (Rioseco, authors point out that private school families have a Baxter, & Warren, 2017). Therefore, when considering broader range of after school options, in particular sports questions about how to improve access to OSHC for those and arts enrichment programs. The LSAC suggests that who do not use it, attention needs to be directed towards whilst not universally so, children of low socio-economic those who are less likely to use it and will benefit most. status are less likely to use OSHC. This is of particular Given the lack of peer-reviewed research investigating concern, when economic disadvantage is a recognised risk OSHC, it is therefore unsurprising that there is almost none factor in childhood trauma and poor educational and life directly addressing OSHC and children from priority groups. outcomes (Toumbourou, Hall, Varcoe, & Leung, 2014). For that reason, the analysis in this section necessarily Further insights are provided by the NSW Department draws mostly on research relating to early childhood of Education bi-annual ‘Have Your Say’ Survey on services and international forms of school age care. OSHC. The survey for the second half of 2019 yielded One of the few texts that provides insights into priority responses from 6,217 parents and carers across 515 groups in OSHC is the Longitudinal Study of Australian postcodes. 54 respondents raised matters relating Children (LSAC) (Rioseco et al., 2017). The report to disability. Of these 54, 47 respondents indicated demonstrates that priority groups are amongst those least that they experienced difficulty accessing BASC, likely to use OSHC. Vulnerable children are less likely to whilst 39 indicated similarly for vacation care. These participate in formal activities in the hours outside school, participants listed a range of factors including: which includes OSHC, increasing the likelihood that they • There were no places available for children with disabilities will be unsupervised (Mullan, 2013). Family income is

Staff were not adequately trained to significant predictor of who is likely to attend. The odds care for children with disabilities of attending OSHC are tripled among children living in
Costs were too great and/or funding not sufficienthouseholds in the middle third, and 7.4 times higher 9

Services were not registered for support via the Government programs National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) There are a number of existing government programs that
There was inadequate transport available arguably make OSHC more accessible for priority groups. to and from the service. Child Care Subsidy (CCS) is a national program that provides fee assistance for parents who use all forms of child care.These concerns echo those raised Sims (2003), The rates of subsidy are determined by family income andwhich also reported encountering some OSHC the number of hours attended meaning that families withservices that were not adequately trained and/or the lowest incomes receive the greatest assistance. There isunreceptive to including children with disabilities. also Additional CCS, which provides short-term support for Swedish research also provides insights into priority groups families experiencing extreme financial hardship (Services and the use of OSHC. Swedish fritidshem (leisure homes) are Australia, 2020). The cost of OSHC is likely a barrier for many structured and conceptualised similarly to Australian OSHC, priority families given that they likely experience multiple and children with intellectual disabilities and from other priority forms of disadvantage, but it is unclear if CCS addresses groups are less likely to attend (Karlsudd, 2012; Lundback & that barrier as there is no substantive data to provide an Falth, 2019). Lundback and Falth’s (2019) literature review insight (Wong, Harrison, Whiteford, & Rivalland, 2014). provides numerous examples of the complexities priority The other main program targeted at priority families isgroups face in accessing Swedish fritidshem. There are the federal government’s Inclusion Support Programexamples of children in need of special support being refused (ISP) (Australian Government Department of Educationaccess on the basis that they are ‘unsuited’ to the fritidshem Skills and Employment, 2020). The ISP aims to:environment. Gadler (Cited in, Lundback & Falth, 2019) argues that one possible reason priority groups are discouraged from • support eligible mainstream Early Childhood Education attending is because educators are not sufficiently familiar with and Care (ECEC) services to improve their capacity children’s rights articles that underpin national policy. Whilst and capability to provide quality inclusive practices this assertion relates to a Swedish context, it is possible that for all children, to address access and participation some Australian educators are also unfamiliar with a child’s barriers and to support the inclusion of children with right to attend OSHC. Further there are also concerns about additional needs, with their typically developing peers the economic and time constraints relating to providing proper • provide parents or carers of children with additional care for children from the priority groups. Services often needs with access to appropriate and inclusive consider an additional educator necessary to care for children ECEC services that assist those parents or carers with high support needs. Whilst the federal government to increase their activity including work, study Inclusion and Professional Support Program can provide funding and training (Inclusion Support Program (ISP) for additional educators, the program does not pay the full Guidelines, updated 25 September 2020). cost of the worker, which may be a barrier. These factors are likely exacerbated by the watering down of the Priority The term ‘additional needs’ refers broadly to children with of Access Guidelines in Australia which no longer positions disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and attending OSHC as a right for those with the most need. children from diverse cultural backgrounds. The program seeks to accomplish its aims in a number of ways. Inclusion Agencies Research from the early childhood and care sector gives employ Inclusion Professionals (IP) who advise and support further cause to suspect that other priority groups fail to use OSHC services to access resources that assist with inclusion. OSHC. Brennan and Adamson (2014) report that children The program also provides access to specialist equipment who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, have non-English and sometimes funding for additional staff (Australian speaking backgrounds or have disabilities are less likely to Government Department of Education Skills and Employment, attend early childhood education and care. Similarly, the 2020). ECE services that receive support through the longitudinal E4Kids study found that vulnerable cohorts were ISP must develop a Strategic Inclusion Plan (SIP) for their less likely to attend ECEC (Gilley, Tayler, Niklas, & Cloney, service, in collaboration with the Inclusion Agency (IA). SIPs 2015). Broadly, people experiencing disadvantage are less provide a self-guided inclusion assessment and planning likely to access child care and other community services tool for services, and includes strategies for improving and (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2012). Therefore, whilst embedding inclusive practice in line with the National Quality these studies relate to early childhood service types, it is Standards (NQS) (KU NSW/ACT Inclusion Agency, 2020). reasonable to suggest that families from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-English speaking backgrounds Although the ISP has existed in various iterations for or who have children with disabilities will also be less approximately three decades, it is uncertain how effective likely to attend OSHC. However, it is important the dearth the ISP is in providing access to OSHC for priority groups of literature about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander as there is no publicly available research that provides any communities and OSHC, which highlights the need for more insight. Anecdotally, through their contact with OSHC services research in partnership with Indigenous communities. and peak bodies, the authors believe that children with disabilities, particularly those who attend specialist schools,

are unlikely to attend OSHC at a mainstream school. It is needs to register with the NDIS, which anecdotally few however widely accepted in the OSHC sector that priority mainstream services appear to have done. Children who groups are more likely to attend Vacation Care. There is also attend mainstream OSHC at their own school might a perception amongst some OSHC workers that Inclusion benefit indirectly from NDIS funding attached to the Professionals often come from early childhood backgrounds school for things like mobility and communication aids. and do not always understand OSHC. However, there is again It is highly probable that if more work was undertaken tono research to support this. One small, unpublished study by support OSHC services better understand the NDIS, thesethe Victorian Inclusion Agency (VIA) (2021) provides some services would be better positioned to provide environmentsinsights into the effectiveness of the ISP. The VIA found accessible to children with high support needs. It is alsothat services who had at least one visit from an IP were fairly likely that the support might need to address attitudesmore likely to achieve an ‘exceeding’ rating in their National given that some OSHC providers might be resistant toQuality Framework outcome. Whilst far from conclusive, this including children with high support needs (Sims, 2003).provides some evidence that engagement with the ISP can result in better standards of OSHC delivery, which benefits What sort of OSHC program? all children, including those with high support needs. When considering children with complex disabilities, An earlier iteration of the ISP was the federally funded consideration needs to be given to of the most suitable OSHC Supplementary Services (SUPS) Worker program. Sims delivery mode as well. Demand for specialist rather than (2003) provides first-person accounts from SUPS mainstream OSHC for children who attend specialist schools workers of their experiences supporting the inclusion has increased over the past decade (Queensland Children’s of priority children in OSHC and ECEC. The examples of Activities Network (QCAN), 2019). In their Position Paper, poor-quality practice come mostly from OSHC services QCAN (2019) present a number of arguments in support of and depict some confronting examples of services that specialist OSHC, in particular that such services may be better were unwilling and unprepared to include priority children, able to meet the needs of children with complex support needs and not responsive to their needs. These accounts are and that these children have a right to play opportunities important because SUPS workers had close relationships with their peers that are relevant and meaningful to them. with parents, and arguably closer than those made possible by the current ISP. The SUPS workers who participated In many instances, such opportunities cannot currently be in Sims’ study provide suggestions of what constitutes provided by mainstream services. There is a concern that quality practice with priority children and families: priority children in mainstream OSHC would be positioned as outsiders and ‘Other’. Mainstream settings are unlikely

Being positive about and accepting of the child to include peers from the child’s school, something that
Being prepared many children without a disability would have ready • Positive interactions with the child access to. However, Cologon (n.d.) proposes that children

still encounter social challenges in specialist settings,• Being flexible willing to learn (Sims, 2003). in that they are more likely to encounter bullying. It is of course important to remember that when this Despite the benefits proposed by QCAN, specialist OSHCstudy was conducted there were no minimum standards or sits uneasily against the aims of the mainstream supportregulatory framework for OSHC. The principles identified programs already discussed in this review in a number ofby Sims are all foundational in the current OSHC framework ways. The main purpose of the ISP is to support inclusionwhich has now been in place for 10 years. Additionally, in mainstream settings, something that is not provided byOSHC as a sector now has a higher percentage of qualified specialist OSHC, rendering it ineligible for the ISP. QCANworkers and 20 more years’ experience of including priority (2019) also detail how the requirements of the NQS arechildren. Nonetheless, this research is important in the not currently a good fit for specialist services and presentcontext of this review because it suggests that parents significant barriers to their establishment and operation.can be good judges of what a quality children’s setting QCAN’s paper describes how these and other factors conspirelooks like and whether or not it is suitable for their child. to make specialist OSHC too expensive for communities. Another important program is the National Disability Insurance QCAN propose that governments need to consider funding Scheme (NDIS), a federally funded program that provides approaches that support the provision of specialist OSHC, financial support to individuals who have permanent or suggesting that the NDIS appears the most viable option. ongoing disabilities (National Disability Insurance Agency, The provision of specialist OSHC proposed by QCAN is the2020). The NDIS provides access to a range of supports focus of a pilot program being conducted by the Victorianincluding medical services, mobility assistance, support Department of Education. Since 2018, the program hasworkers, transportation and participation in community operated at five specialist and one mainstream school. Fundingactivities. The extent to which these supports are available for the program has supported additional staff, specialisedto children who might attend OSHC is unclear. For a child resources, training for staff and provision of excursions.to receive NDIS funding to attend OSHC, the service

The Victorian Government has conducted an unpublished However, there appears to be one important difference. review that provides important insights into the accessibility The inclusion worker in the TWP appears much more ‘hands of OSHC for priority groups. Similar to QCAN, the Victorian on’, or actively involved, with OSHC staff than an Australian Government found that there is an ongoing gap in provision Inclusion Professional (IP) in that they have more license to for children with complex needs that is not being addressed train and guide OSHC staff. One requirement of IPs is that by the current marketised approach to OSHC provision; that they build capacity of OSHC staff with respect to inclusive the current mix of funding programs including the NDIS and practice and that they are seen as facilitators rather than CCS are not sufficient to address costs for parents; and that trainers (Australian Government Department of Education more work needs to be done to understand what quality Skills and Employment, 2020). The assumption underpinning practice looks like for children with complex support needs. this requirement seems to be that in time OSHC services Importantly, this program suggests that participation in OSHC will be capable enough to no longer require an IP. This is has benefits for children with high support needs, and their a laudable aim and one shared by the TWP. However, at parents and communities. In particular, the program gives the time of the study, the designers of the TWP seem to children access to activities that they might not normally acknowledge that OSHC workers needed greater support. experience, and parents receive important respite as well as This raises critical questions about whether the currentthe capacity to achieve greater workforce participation. Australian ISP is the best model to support the inclusion of Whilst specialist OSHC might seem to improve access children with disabilities in OSHC at this moment. OSHC for parents, it is unclear whether it provides the best is a sector with high levels of transient staff, who often developmental outcomes for children with complex stay no more than a few years before moving on to other disabilities. Cologon (n.d.) draws on a range of research careers (McNamara & Cassells, 2010). Consequently, many literature to propose that mainstream settings provide better OSHC services need to ‘start again’ every time a cohort outcomes for children with high support needs. The benefits of educators move on. As such, it is to be expected that include improved academic, social and emotional outcomes, as educators and coordinators leave, so too will some of as well as greater community membership and participation. the capacity to include priority children. This raises the The uncertainties about mainstream and specialist OSHC question of whether, despite worthy attempts to build point highlight multiple tensions. Whilst delivery at specialist capacity, there will always be a need for IPs who provide schools has much to offer with respect to physical access, hands-on support to OSHC services staffed by workers there is uncertainty as to whether it best supports children’s who are new to the sector and the principles of inclusion. education, development and community participation. Later in this review, the image of OSHC is discussed in greaterTherefore, when adresssing access, consideration also depth. Certainly, in order for parents of priority children toneed to given to the types of services children and families feel positive about OSHC, they need to see it as a setting thatare able to access and the benefits they provide. is confident in providing for their child’s requirements and has International programs for priority groups adequate resources to do so. Enabling Inclusion Professionals to work more directly with the service might leave OSHC There is little other research that investigates how to educators and coordinators more confident because they engage priority groups in OSHC. One study that requires know they have access to a central resource who will consideration for this review investigates a program run in the provide direct assistance as well as link to other supports. United States (US), ‘Together We Play’ (TWP) (Scholl, Dieser, & Davison, 2005). TWP was a pilot program that sought to Should older children be integrate children with disabilities in US after school programs. considered a priority group? Similar to the Australian context, children with disabilities have low levels of participation in after school activities. So far this section has focused on vulnerable groups The central component of the program was the presence with greater social needs who could benefit from, but do of a social inclusion worker, whose role it was to assess the not often use, OSHC. Another group who under-utilise OSHC environment, and facilitate initial access to OSHC, OSHC are older children, those aged 9-12 years. Whilst provision of physical supports, and also training of OSHC not considered ‘vulnerable’, older children are of interest staff. The inclusion worker plays a vital role linking OSHC in this review. OSHC is supposed to provide for children workers to agencies and supports that assist with inclusion, aged 5-12 years but only one-third of participants are and operates on the assumption that one barrier to inclusion aged 9-12 years (Hurst, 2017, 2020b). Whilst there is that ASP staff lack confidence and experience including is no definitive knowledge about why older children children with high support needs (Scholl et al., 2005). do not go to OSHC, Hurst has produced a number of studies investigating the question. There seems to The research reported positive results, claiming increased be a perception amongst older children that OSHC is successful participation by children with disabilities, although better suited to younger children. Older children who the extent and nature of those improvements is unclear. attend OSHC raise a number of issues that inform this On the surface, TWP seems very similar in approach perspective. In particular, these issues include whether: and philosophy to Australia’s Inclusion Support Program.

• activities lack challenge and are better is something that will be addressed in more detail later in

suited to younger children the review. This section also highlights the dearth of peer

•  older children need their own spaces and resources           reviewed literature relating to OSHC and priority groups,

which is something that requires urgent attention.

the small number of older children means that there are not enough same-age peers to play with

• older children feel marginalised as a problematic 4.3 The benefits of OSHC

minority (Hurst, 2015, 2017, 2020b). OSHC services are a complex identity. On the one hand, Older children’s lack of participation does not appear to services provide an institutional space to hold children be due to a diminished need for care. Statistics collected waiting for their primary care givers who may be working by the ABS (2018) suggest that parents find other care or studying. Simultaneously they are developing as what options for older children such as care by neighbours, could be described as a business unit, which provides family or older siblings. This raises the possibility that income and employment to the providers of the service, if OSHC was seen as more desirable by older children, which could be community groups or commercial entities. they may be more likely to attend and thereby raise Schools as ‘landlords’ may receive remuneration for the participation by a group for who these services are intended. provision of the physical space and resources. However, one Consideration might be given for how to support services might describe the core of the activity of an OSHC is to to better cater for children of diverse age groups. support children’s development and wellbeing. Any changes Summary to the current system will require innovative responses to deal with the high level of systemic complexity. This section provided a detailed review of the available literature relating to OSHC and children from priority Research into Benefits of OSHC for children groups. Whilst there is some literature addressing children OSHC programs prioritise social and emotional skills of with disabilities and high support needs, there is little school connectedness, self-management, self-efficacy, addressing children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait growth mindset and social awareness. It should also be Islander backgrounds, diverse cultural backgrounds, noted that with services opening 6:15–9:00am and 3:00 economic disadvantage or at risk of abuse and neglect. 6:30pm (NSW services are usually 7:00-9:00am and 3:00 It is also important to remember that families do 6:00pm), the potential maximum time that children can not often experience just one form disadvantage, as spend at the OSHC service may actually be longer than time vulnerabilities are often cumulative (Wong et al., 2014). spent in the ‘school’ classrooms in some circumstances. The current mix of funding programs, like the Child Care Research from Early ChildhoodSubsidy and Inclusion Support Program, are certainly welcome in their attempts to make OSHC more accessible for a Research from the Early Childhood sector notes that range of priority groups. The CCS does this by attending access and full participation are not always available to to financial barriers. The ISP is more holistic in that it all children in the learning and care services (Australian seeks to address financial barriers for services, access to Government Productivity Commission, 2014). The children knowledge for services, physical access through specialist that most commonly miss out are those with a disability or equipment and also social barriers through education. developmental delay and those from low socioeconomic However, the low levels of engagement of priority groups circumstances at risk of abuse, neglect and developmental in ECEC and OSHC suggest that there may be other, more disadvantage; and children from Culturally and Linguistically effective ways of engaging priority families in OSHC. Diverse (CALD) backgrounds (Noah’s Ark, 2019). The factors that influence family participation in services are multiple and complex (Baxter & Hand, 2013). Possible benefits for children from priority groups This review does suggest that there is a need to investigate the provision of specialist OSHC services for children There is emerging research about the participation in with high support needs. According to QCAN (2019), this high quality programs influencing social and emotional examination should include a review of funding and regulatory development which is a mediator of academic achievement. programs. However, given the benefits of inclusion in This research is emerging from international services as mainstream OSHC identified by Cologon (n.d.), it is equally in Australia there has not been any research examining important to investigate how access to mainstream OSHC the length of time children attend OSHC services and the might also be improved. One other significant consideration links to performance in the classroom. OSHC programs is how priority families view the purpose of OSHC. If OSHC prioritise social and emotional skills of self-management, is viewed purely as a workforce program that is unable to self-efficacy, social awareness and communication. meet their child’s additional needs, then it seems unlikely These skills are linked to children’s overall wellbeing, their that many priority families would want to access it. This capacity to engage in academic performance and future

life outcomes. Bae (2014) notes that the greatest number position OSHC’s role in supporting education and development of empirical studies examining the education outcomes as a barrier to uptake. Recognising OSHC as an important of participation in afterschool programs have been contributor to development might in fact make it more conducted in the United States. Further, Bae (2014) notes appealing to both families and Government policy makers. that if the benefits of OSHC are to be examined then the structure, process and outcomes of the program need to ‘Not core business’ be considered. This is particularly pertinent to the Australia Of particular importance for OSHC is the way it is perceived circumstances where the outcomes of the Framework for by school principals and other powerful actors within School Age Care are linked to learning, leisure and care. schools. Cartmel’s (2007) PhD thesis provides a rich account of how some school principals view OSHC and the

4.4 The image of OSHC                           implications for services. 80% of OSHC services are located                                                     on school grounds, using school buildings and facilities such

Whilst there is only a small amount of peer-reviewed as classrooms, libraries, multi-purpose rooms, equipment research into OSHC, particularly in comparison to other and toilets. Principals are therefore critical stakeholders and early childhood education and care settings, there are some sometimes gatekeepers who govern access to buildings recurring themes. These themes gain importance when they and resources (Cartmel, 2007). There is a problematic view are reinforced by what is also known anecdotally. One theme that has lingered since the early years of OSHC that it is a that seems to run across much of the Australian research marginal consideration for principals and not prioritised or relates to how OSHC is seen by a range of stakeholders. In seen as ‘core business’ (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). This is a review focused on improving access to OSHC, the image unsurprising, given that for most schools, OSHC is something of the sector might at first appear to be a more important that has only been added to their list of functions in the last issue for advocates and people who work in services. 30 years. However, relegating OSHC to a side concern has However, in this section, the intent is to communicate the significant implications. Principals can be reluctant to share vital importance of the image of OSHC when considering facilities and resources (Australian Government Productivity access. How OSHC is perceived has implications that Commission, 2014b). It also contributes to OSHC staff feeling impact of all aspects of provision and engagement. undervalued, which impacts on their wellbeing, sense of value and capacity to perform their roles (Cartmel, 2007). ‘Just care’ Cartmel argues that when principals and OSHC coordinators Earlier in this review, background was provided into the hold contrasting views about OSHC, services may be development of OSHC and the gradual transformation over delegitimised, compromised in their ability to provide quality decades from recreational after school activities into a programs. Their coordinators may be less likely to represent regulated service that aims to provide care and supplement the best interests of children outside the classroom as well. children’s education in a leisure-based setting (Cartmel, According to Cartmel (2007), this image of OSHC as 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). Whilst key policy something peripheral to the ‘normal’ business of schools documents like the MTOP Framework and the NQF might misrepresents the realities. As the extent of OSHC recognise that OSHC plays a more important role in children’s provision has grown, OSHC has become more, rather than development than just providing safe-keeping, this may less, connected and entangled with schools and school not necessarily align with other perceptions of services management. The education reforms of 2009/10 also and what they can provide (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). mean that the educational goals of schools and OSHC are OSHC is frequently seen as providing ‘just care’ and of lower also more closely aligned (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014).status than other early childhood services types (Cartmel, 2007). It is a perception of OSHC that is held by a range of A place of fun and friendship stakeholders and has implications for its perceived relevance. When considering the importance of how OSHC is viewed, Government play a significant role in positioning OSHC as one perspective that needs greater consideration is that mostly care. Whilst the Rudd government’s early childhood of children. Children have multiple rights under the United reforms in the late 2000s were welcomed by the OSHC Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a sector, they exist in tension with economic priorities that convention to which Australia is signatory (United Nations, conceptualise OSHC largely through a workforce lens. This 1989). This includes Article 12, the right to form and is exemplified by the 2014 Productivity Commission inquiry express a view about matters that affect them, and to into child care and early childhood learning which prioritises have those views considered. As the primary recipients of OSHC’s care and economic functions above others (Australian the services provided by OSHC, what children think about Government Productivity Commission, 2014b). The inquiry and want from OSHC is critical to questions of access. regards requirements for educational programs and qualified staff in purely economic terms as a cost with questionable Research into children’s views and OSHC is becoming more efficacy and therefore barrier to participation. Certainly, cost commonplace and sheds some light on their perspectives. is an important consideration for families, but it is limiting to Hurst (2013, 2017) conducted two small research projects

investigating the views of children aged 9 to 12 years, an (DEEWR, 2011b). There is little research that sheds light age group less likely to attend OSHC. In both studies, the on how parents view OSHC. It is known that parents select most important features about OSHC for the participants OSHC primarily on the basis of location (Baxter et al., 2014), were the presence of fun and friends. The children desired but this speaks mainly to convenience rather than their activities that were both enjoyable, but also consistent with views about what OSHC should provide. School principals their level of development. Development was also relevant can sometimes view OSHC as an additional burden that sits to their desire not just for friends, but those who were of a outside their regular work, which grates with the views of similar age. Similar results are reported by Simoncini et al. OSHC coordinators and staff who are more inclined to see (2015) who surveyed a group of 164 Australian children. The services as valuable contributors to children’s development authors reported that activities (52.4%) and play (34.1%) (Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014; Milton et were the ‘best’ aspects of OSHC. Friends were also important al., 2021; Westoby et al., 2021). Milton et al., (2021) with 18.9% of children reporting that friends were the best collaborated with key stakeholders at a NSW OSHC service thing about OSHC. 43.9% of children reported making new to co-design a well-being program, Connect Promote friends at OSHC; girls in particular valued this aspect. Protect Prrogram (CP3) to be delivered within the OSHC program. Then there are the children themselves, who value In another small, qualitative project, Bell and Cartmel OSHC for providing play and friendship (Bell & Cartmel, (2014) found that Brisbane children preferred play in 2014; Hurst, 2013, 2017; Simoncini et al., 2015).spaces that were outdoors or ‘out of bounds’. These results again highlight how children like to see OSHC as This review regards these sometimes conflicting images a site of self-directed activity, a perception that recurs of OSHC as central to the question of improving access. as a feature in all the studies cited in this section. In particular, attention needs to be paid to the views of children, which have historically been ignored with respectSimilar findings about children’s views of OSHC appear in to policy and research (Hurst, 2017; United Nations,international research literature. In the United Kingdom (UK), 2005). If Australian children desire OSHC to be a site ofOliver, Egharevba, and Petrie (2000) report that children play and friendship, then efforts can be made to supportvalue being able to meet and make friends. Icelandic children it being seen in this way. Perhaps if children see OSHC asin the first years of primary school indicated that they saw a desirable place then they are more likely to want to go.OSHC primarily as a site of play where they could direct This is particularly the case for children in the later yearshow they spend their leisure time, which contrasted with of primary school who attend OSHC in lower numbers andtheir view of school, which they saw as a site of structure can have a negative view of services (Gifford, 1991; Hurst,and academic learning (Pálsdóttir, 2010). Similarly, two 2015, 2020b). Government might consider ways to supportSwedish studies by Johansson and Ljusberg (as cited in, OSHC services to promote play and social engagement asPálsdóttir, 2010) and Klerfelt and Haglund (2015) found the focus of provision. Consideration might also be giventhat children valued OSHC largely as a place for play and to ways of promoting OSHC as a site of fun and friends tosocial engagement as well as fellowship with peers. improve community perceptions of the sector. In particular, These studies have relevance for this review as the UK, promotion should be focused on priority groups who are Iceland and Sweden all conceptualise OSHC similarly to often marginalised socially (Rioseco et al., 2017). Australia (Hurst, 2017). Presented together with the The views of some powerful actors would potentially workAustralian research, they present a compelling picture about against attempts to shift community perceptions of OSHC,what children want from their spaces in the hours outside in particular those of school principals. Cartmel (2007)school. Whilst it is easy to dismiss these views as children proposes that principals’ views of OSHC have effect not just‘just wanting to play’, this review reminds readers that play within the school – but also the communities they serve.is a right in the UNCRC and one of the primary means by Additionally, problematic attitudes to OSHC within schoolswhich children learn (Gonski Institute for Education, 2020; can negatively impact on access to spaces and resourcesLester & Russell, 2014; United Nations, 2013). If adults which has direct impact on the capacity of services torecognise the educational value of play, they are then more likely to support it in their actions (Kane, 2015). provide a quality program (Cartmel, 2007). Government should consider ways to support principals’ engagement How Outside School Hours with the OSHC settings they support, which would add Care is viewed matters encouragement to provide OSHC with appropriate spaces that support play and social engagement as suggested by the This section has described the differing ways OSHC is Australian Government Productivity Commission (2014b). viewed by various stakeholders. Government is inclined to view it as predominantly a care service that supports Finally, consideration should also be given to identifying ways workforce participation and economic goals. This exists in of shifting broad community perceptions of OSHC so that conflict with regulatory texts that build on the emerging these perceptions better recognise the multiple purposes body of OSHC research that recognises its important role that OSHC serves. The view of OSHC as a service that in supporting educational and developmental outcomes supports play and development as well as providing care is

widely accepted in the OSHC sector and already expressed International data reveals that countries who operate OSHC in the Framework and the NQF. However, it seems unlikely services with smaller indoor space requirements, require that this view will gain a foothold in the wider community. OSHC leaders to be tertiary qualified. It has been noted that If the images of OSHC in communities can shift beyond the services with lower ratios of indoor space had university being seen as ‘just care’, it potentially widens the appeal of qualified program leaders (Cartmel, 2019). These leaders OSHC to families who don’t normally see OSHC as the right were afforded equitable status to school staff. They have high fit ‘for them’. Current governmental perspectives on OSHC level knowledge of children’s development and programming as a service that ‘just’ supports workforce goals provides an skills to ensure the space and resources available is used unnecessarily narrow perspective on OSHC’s value and the effectively to support children’s learning and care. SACERS support it can provide for families. There is really no literature (Harms, et al, 2013) highlights the qualifications/experience to support how this work might be done. However, Sweden of OSHC leaders. OSHC leadership, in particular the provides reassurance that it can be done. Sweden’s OSHC capacity to advocate for themselves has a direct link to services are very close to Australian services in how they higher SACERS score. In the SACERS tool, items 36 and 39 are imagined but are much more closely aligned with the rate the capacity of a service to function effectively on a schools that host them. Swedish services are therefore more school site. These items rate the partnership and leadership highly regarded by the community. Government might also arrangements between the OSHC service and the school. consider building relationships with Swedish policy-makers When the school and teachers’ value OSHC educators as and academics to understand better how this work has been partners in the education and care of children, then, the done. Whilst the work of shifting perceptions is slippery sharing of the physical environment is more congenial and not as easy to quantify as lowering fees or funding and the quality of the physical environment is likely to be buildings, it nonetheless offers much in terms of improving better (Cartmel, 2007). See Appendix one for excerpts of access if families, children, principals and government can items and subscales from SACERS (Harms et al, 2013). see OSHC as more than just a necessary inconvenience. Case study: Swedish approach to OSHC and school management – a national curriculum 4.5 OSHC and school partnerships Swedish school-age educare centres (extended education/ Critical partnership between OSHC) are a part of the school, and these services share resources. The curriculum for OSHC is embedded into OSHC and schools the national curriculum (Skolvert, 2018). This curriculum It is paramount that collaboration of schools and OSHC feature strengths the value placed on inclusion of all services are recognised. The majority of OSHC services children in OSHC program. OSHC Staff (leisure-time are located on school sites. OSHC services offer pedagogues), require a three and-a-half years tertiary opportunities for widely differing needs and interests of degree from a higher-level college or university (Ministry children. Increasing opportunities for school principals, of Education and Research, 2016). Educational pedagogues key personnel in schools and wider community to have a (pre-school teachers) make up 60% of the personnel in deeper awareness of the MTOP framework and associated the OSHC. The barriers between OSHC and school are curriculum for a quality program in OSHC would strengthen less dramatic. Almost all (99%) Swedish children attend understanding. When the school workforce value OSHC high-quality leisure centres during non-school hours. educators as partners in providing learning opportunities Wider economic benefits have also been proven. Research (both formal and informal), the outcomes for children are evidence shows that when children have access to likely to be better (Harms et al, 2013). The School-age quality early childhood education they can expect better Care Environmental Rating Scale (SACERS) tool (Harms, et school success, a decreased crime rate, less substance al, 2013) is a validated tool to evaluate the quality of OSHC abuse and increased long-term employment – all programs to provide warm and caring support and learning positives for the economy (Nilsson, et al, 2015). opportunities for children. The items in the SACERS tool (Harmes, et al, 2013) include evaluation of the physical If not out of consideration for the human rights of children, environment as well as the professional relationships then out of consideration for the many economic benefits between OSHC staff, and with school personnel. of a good childcare system and the future benefits for children and families, all countries should strive for reform The research suggests that qualified staff are more likely of their early childhood education and care systems. to manage relationships between the OSHC and school in order to negotiate critical aspects that support all children Implications for priority groups and families of the school community. A high level of Where there are very strong partnerships between thechild development knowledge, high level of observation community of the school and the OSHC, there are bestskills, capacity to use play-work practice strategies and practice examples of mutually beneficial decision-makingwork with intentionality would ensure that the diversity and an alignment of values about the operation of theof children’s capabilities and interests could be met.

service. This type of service operation characterises In 2006, 84% of workers were women, which is similar in OSHC services that prioritise the development and proportion to the early childhood workforce (McNamara & wellbeing of children, inclusion of children with high Cassells, 2010). The age of workers is also worth discussion support needs, and consideration of the needs of the with 42% aged between 15-24 years. These younger workers parent community before income stream. Further, in these are often studying for other careers such as teaching and are situations there are examples of negotiating about high suited to the casualised nature of the jobs (Cartmel, Brannelly, quality use of the venue and resources to accommodate Phillips & Hurst, in press). In 2016, 17.4% of workers more children in the service (Cartmel, et al., 2019). were studying towards a Bachelor’s degree (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2017). 4.6 OSHC Workforce There is also an interesting relationship between age and gender with higher proportions of males in the 19-24 So far, this review has addressed a number of different year age group and males less likely to remain employed aspects of OSHC and their importance when thinking in OSHC after four years. The workforce is highly about how to improve access of priority groups. This transient with only 26.1% having worked for four or more section considers the matters relating to workforce. years in the one service (McNamara & Cassells, 2010; One matter already discussed in previous sections ACECQA, 2019b). This again suggests a high proportion is how OSHC workers are perceived by parents and of students who move on after completing study. children. Workforce matters such as staff qualifications The workforce also has a diverse mix of qualifications are critical in how workers and OSHC are regarded. and experience. In 2006, 52% of workers were A constantly changing workforce unqualified, although that proportion appears to be decreasing (ACECQA, 2019b). OSHC is a sector that has undergone constant change since the 1980s in its purposes with the introduction of a One of the most significant workforce changes that succession of regulatory regimes (Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel accompanied the 2010 NQF reforms was the introduction & Grieshaber, 2014; Hurst, 2017). Each of these changes of mandatory qualifications for OSHC, which is expected has resulted in changes to the professional demands on to have increased the proportion of qualified workers. workers, in particular an increasing administrative workload Accepted qualifications for OSHC cover a wide range that accompanied the OSHC Quality Assurance Scheme of levels and disciplines related to childhood (ACECQA, in 2003 and the NQF in 2010 (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2020). There is no national list of prescribed qualifications 2014). As participation in OSHC has increased, so too for educators working with children over preschool age has the size of the workforce, which grew 52% between with each state and territory determining the qualification 2013 and 2016 (Australian Government Department requirements for OSHC educators in their jurisdiction. of Education and Training, 2017; Australian Government Unlike the rest of Australia, NSW does not have any Productivity Commission, 2014b). Despite the increasing qualification requirements for OSHC educators. size of the workforce, roles in OSHC are not highly Given that there are 381 potential qualifications across sought after. However, it is noted that using permanent Australia, it is beyond the scope of this review to cover all of part-time contracts has reduced turnover, along with the possible qualifications OSHC workers can have (ACECQA, financial and other incentives based on performance and 2020). The most common qualifications are vocational tenure. Regardless, the lack of professional development at Certificate or Diploma level (ACECQA, 2019b). These opportunities, in particular OSHC-specific professional include the only two vocational qualifications designed for development opportunities, can leave many educators OSHC, which are the Certificate IV and Diploma of Outside feeling undervalued (ACECQA, 2019b). The low status School Hours Care. However, a proportion of workers of the sector discussed previously in this review also will also have qualifications in early childhood. Whilst the means that its workers are often considered low status. majority of possible qualifications have an educational focus, OSHC is staffed by a predominantly casualised workforce, workers can also have qualifications in related disciplines which reflects its short periods of operation (ACECQA, like youth work, recreation or psychology (ACECQA, 2020). 2019b). In 2016, 68% of the workforce were employed for In addition, many workers will not have completed their 19 hours or less per week and only 10.3% worked full-time qualifications. There is provision in the NQF for workers hours (Australian Government Department of Education and to be considered ‘qualified’ if they are “actively working Training, 2017). The predominance of casual roles leaves towards” their qualification (ACECQA, 2020). This provision OSHC workers particularly vulnerable to financial ruptures is likely intended to support services in responding to like the current COVID-19 pandemic. A further snapshot of shortages of qualified workers and the historical involvement the workforce is provided by McNamara and Cassells (2010) of tertiary students as part-time workers in OSHC. and ACECQA (2019b). Although there is nearly 10 years These statistics describe a workforce that is diverse and difference between reports, discussions with state peak eclectic, although it needs to be noted that it may not bodies suggest that not much has changed in the last decade.

necessarily be a workforce ideally suited to the needs of Summary children from priority groups. Given the high proportion This section has provided a brief overview of who works of workers who are unqualified or still studying, it is in OSHC. It illustrates a diverse workforce made up probable that many enter the job without the skills and predominantly of women and casual employees. Whilst the experience needed to support children whose needs fall proportion of qualified staff is increasing, many workers are outside the mainstream. Of course, these workers can unqualified or working towards a qualification. Additionally, acquire knowledge and expertise on the job. However, the diverse range of qualifications in OSHC mean that workers the transient nature of the workforce means that it is present with a complex mix of skills and theoretical biases. difficult to retain those skills longer-term. In some services, It is easy to see how all of these factors might lead parents coordinators are reluctant to invest in the professional to form a critical view about the capacity of some OSHC development of short-term workers (Cartmel et al., 2020). services to care for a child from a priority group whose needs There are also questions about whether qualified workers might differ from the mainstream. This range of factors have the necessary skills. Whilst the Certificate and Diploma emerges from a complex history and cannot be addressed OSHC qualifications have content relating to priority groups, simply. However, how the OSHC workforce is seen by families the low levels of participation in OSHC by priority groups is critical if they are to use the service. Perhaps something means that students may not gain relevant experience during like the QCAN Professional Standards for OSHC Educators their practical placements. It is also important to consider how project (QCAN, 2018) offers one way to give workers more well some qualifications are suited to work in OSHC. Students confidence in working with priority families and that this undertaking teaching degrees which have a developmental might contribute to parents also having more confidence. and academic focus may lack familiarity with the play and leisure-based pedagogies required for OSHC. This does not mean that these workers are not fit for purpose, but these are certainly factors that demand consideration when thinking about how to include priority children in OSHC.

Professional Standards for

Outside School Hours Care

One other factor to consider is whether OSHC workers are provided with adequate knowledge about ‘how’ to work with priority groups. The MTOP Framework functions as a broad set of principles around which workers are expected to form their practices (DEEWR, 2011b). However, the framework stops short of telling workers ‘how to do it’. The Queensland Children’s Activity Network (QCAN) sought to address this through their OSHC Professional Standards for Educators (The Standards) (QCAN, n.d.). The Standards aim to provide a universal illustration of what quality practice can look like in OSHC, including how to support children from priority groups. The document provides practice standards for four different categories of OSHC workers that account for different levels of qualifications and experience (Cartmel et al., 2020; Queensland Children’s Activities Network (QCAN), n.d.).

The Standards certainly provide another perspective for workers who are unsure how to support children from priority groups. However, they fall short of a comprehensive guide. There is perhaps an opportunity to develop a practice guide for OSHC that provides suggested practices for workers when engaging with new family from a priority group. When making this recommendation, it does need to be acknowledged that there is a risk in universalising practices for families on the basis that they come from a priority group. Smith, Tesar, and Myers (2016) caution that to do so further positions already vulnerable groups as ‘deficit and problematic’. Any practice guide needs to address this possibility.

Conclusion and recommendations The question of how to make OSHC more accessible to parents choose to send a child there, particularly for priority priority groups is complex. One thing that is evident in families who may have smaller incomes. If OSHC is only completing this review is that there is a range of multiple, seen as care for working families, then it is reasonable interconnected factors that each likely play a role in to assume that working families will be the dominant whether parents and children take up the opportunity to users as is currently the case in Australia. Something that attend OSHC. Consequently, is highly unlikely that there Government should consider is how the other benefits and exists a ‘silver bullet’ that will address this matter. The functions of OSHC can be communicated to families. recommendations that follow need to be considered with this in mind, as interconnected and dependent upon each other. RECOMMENDATION 3: Greater awareness needs to be created about the educational and developmental benefits The other factor that has also been made clear in this review of OSHC. is the clear lack of research literature about OSHC. Cartmel’s (2007) PhD study was the first significant study into Australian OSHC, and whilst Cartmel’s work has drawn much RECOMMENDATION 4: Research needs to be conducted needed research attention to the importance of OSHC and into the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC. facilitated the emergence of a growing number of researchers Not everybody sees OSHC in the same way. One group ofinterested in outside school hours setting, there is much that stakeholders who are not always considered sufficientlystill needs to be learned. This is particularly the case with are children themselves. Children are active citizens whorespect to the question of access by priority groups. Whilst likely play a role in determining whether they attend OSHC.it is known that few members of priority cohorts attend This is particularly the case with older primary childrenOSHC, the reasons why are inferred from other related who appear to see OSHC as a younger children’s space.settings like early childhood, rather than clearly understood. Research shows that children value OSHC settings thatThis makes clear that there is an urgent need for further provide play and shared experiences with friends. Thereresearch that takes into account that all priority groups have is an opportunity for government to work in partnershipunique complexities that make ‘easy’ answers elusive. with other stakeholders to promote OSHC as a site of play and friendship, particularly for older children.RECOMMENDATION 1: More research needs to be conducted in partnership with priority groups to better understand their engagement with OSHC. RECOMMENDATION 5: Explore ways to promote OSHC as a site of play and friendship to children.

RECOMMENDATION 2: More research needs to be conducted in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait RECOMMENDATION 6: Support OSHC services to improve their approaches to working with older children.Islander families to better understand their engagement with OSHC. Consideration also needs to be given to how parents of children with high support needs view OSHC. WhilstThis review has also made clear the importance of the higher numbers of children with high support needs attendimage of OSHC. As already discussed, OSHC has low status vacation care, very few attend OSHC. One likely reason forin Australian society and is often seen by those outside the this is that few specialist schools provide OSHC, which issector as services that perform the seemingly simple task of significant given that parents prefer OSHC at their child’skeeping children safe and occupied. However, this perception school. It also seems likely that many parents do not considerunderstates the multiple and complex roles performed by mainstream OSHC services suitably resourced and trainedOSHC. Certainly, OSHC provides care for working families, to care for children with high support needs. Whilst therebut this review suggests that high-quality OSHC is also are existing programs to support OSHC services withan important contributor to children’s development and inclusive practice, this review questions whether thosewellbeing, particularly for those children who spend large supports are adequate. Consideration therefore needsamounts of time there. OSHC is also a complementary to be given to how OSHC provision can be improved foreducational setting that typically operates on school children with high support needs in a number of ways.grounds. This however is again under-appreciated with OSHC often operating at arm’s length rather than in concert with other school functions. It seems logical therefore, that RECOMMENDATION 7: Review existing inclusion supports for mainstream OSHC services to build the capacity ofhow OSHC is seen would play an important role in whether services to care for children with high support needs.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Explore possible benefits of supporting the development and wellbeing of many children. providing transportation between specialist schools and Responding to the recommendations provided in this review mainstream OSHC. can further strengthen OSHC provision in New South Wales. It would contribute to an OSHC sector that is increasingly capable and professional and hopefully valued as such byRECOMMENDATION 9: Explore increased provision of more children, families, school principals and communityOSHC at specialist schools. members. Given the complex and interconnected nature of OSHC provision, addressing these recommendations willWhen considering the image of OSHC, one other significant likely take slow and patient work. However, it is hoped thatgroup are school principals. School principals are aware of it will result in OSHC services that are seen as beneficialthe importance of partnerships with families and the school and the right of all children in the NSW community.community. OSHC provides a conduit between families and schools and contributes significantly to children’s social and POSTSCRIPT: Impact of COVID 19 Pandemicemotional learning. As discussed, most OSHC services are provided on school grounds and provide for the children who At the time of preparing this review, Australian OSHC services attend those same schools. Despite this, as Cartmel (2007) were experiencing the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic. demonstrates, principals can regard OSHC as not core business, The circumstances of the pandemic had positive and negative low status and a necessary inconvenience. Underestimating consequences for the OSHC services. Attendance expectations OSHC in this way can have multiple impacts on the capacity of and patterns changed (Baxter, 2021, which had implications OSHC staff to deliver high quality experiences for children and for financial management and workforce. Findings from the families. Principals play a critical role in operational decisions ‘Money Matters’ report showed that the pandemic led to relating to spaces, staffing, resources and policies necessary for ‘the loss of a significant portion of casual employees [which OSHC provision. If school management hold a low opinion of in turn] has had a resounding effect on the OSHC workforce OSHC, this is likely reflected in the quality of service offered. (Network, 2020 p.9). The loss increases the likelihood For this reason, consideration needs to be given to how the that the OSHC sector has entered a cycle of hiring and image of OSHC can be raised with this important group. retraining employees, while enduring a period of fluctuating and unreliable demand for bookings – which will impact the RECOMMENDATION 10: Greater awareness needs to be quality of care provided by services. This is of particular created about the educational and developmental benefits concern when, as this Review finds, research shows that high of OSHC with school principals and management. staff retention results in better care outcomes for children

The relevance of OSHC as an essential service RECOMMENDATION 11: Explore ways of supporting school with benefits beyond care was underlined. principals to recognise the benefits of positive partnerships To date there has been limited research about the short termwith OSHC coordinators and providers. and potential long term impact on OSHC service delivery The qualifications of the OSHC workforce are a significant and more importantly about the impact on the children’s factor in the provision of high quality, equitable and inclusive lives. Unpublished findings from COVID-engagement OSHC environments for children. The research suggests that educator focus groups held by the NSW Department of qualified staff are more likely to be able to demonstrate a high Education in March 2021, indicate that many OSHC educators level of child development knowledge, high level of observation felt the pandemic, and the Commonwealth Government’s skills and to work with intentionality. The workforce is more response to it, underlined key differences between OSHC likely to manage the demands of their role and responsibilities, with other ECE service types. Participants in the sessions particularly when working with children from priority groups. also emphasised the way in which COVID-19 enhanced more than ever the important role of clear communication RECOMMENDATION 12: Introduce the use of Professional between schools and OSHCs. Internationally, the Scottish Standards for OSHC educators. peak OSHC organsiation has reported more engagement in outdoor activities; in Italy there has been a considered approach to provide holiday programs to compensate for the RECOMMENDATION 13: Review the qualification missed opportuntities for social and emotional learning; and requirements for OSHC services to ensure that the in the United States parents were reported to be concerned workforce has the skills and knowledge to care for children about the safety and the development and learning of with high support needs. their children (Adams, 2020). Post COVID 19 pandemic, research examining OSHC access and provision needs to take OSHC has become an important context of childhood and into consideration the geographical, social and economic family life for growing numbers of Australian children and landscape. In essence the key recommendations from this their families. However, as this review has demonstrated, review will be even more important to ensure that OSHC not all children and families access the benefits that services are available to children as sites of learning and OSHC can provide. OSHC services already play a vital role development and to support families in their daily activities.

References Adams, G & Todd, M. (2020). Meeting the school-age Program. Retrieved from https://www.education. child care needs of working parents facing COVID-19 gov.au/inclusion-support-program-isp distance learning. Washington: Urban Institute. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018). (2014a). Childcare and early childhood 44020DO001-201706 - Childhood Education learning: Productivity Commission draft report. and Care, Australia, June 2017. Retrieved from: Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ Australian Government Productivity Commission. DetailsPage/4402.0June%202017?OpenDocument (2014b). Childcare and early childhood learning: Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority Productivity Commission inquiry report. (ACECQA). (2019a). What is the NQF? Retrieved Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2012). Social inclusion

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority in Australia: How Australia is faring: Department

(ACECQA). (2019b). Progressing a national approach to of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. the children’s education and care workforce. Workforce Bae, S. H. (2014) Values and Prospects of Extended report November 2019. Retrieved from https:// Education: A Critical Review of the Third NEO

www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/ ER Meeting, International Journal for Research

ChildrensEducationandCareNationalWorkforceStrategy_0.pdf on Extended Education, 2(2), 135-141. Australian Children’s Education and Care Authority (ACECQA). Bae, S. H. (2018). Concepts, models, and research of extended (2020a). Actively working towards a qualification. education. International Journal for Research on Extended Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/qualifications/ Education, 6(2), 153-164. doi:10.3224/ijree.v6i2.06 requirements/actively-working-towards-a-qualification Baxter, J., & Hand, K. (2013). Access to early Australian Children’s Education and Care Authority childhood education in Australia: Australian (ACECQA). (2020b). Qualifications for working Institute of Family Studies Melbourne. in OSHC services. Retrieved from https://www. Baxter, J. (2021). Child care in 2020: Families in Australia acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/

Survey Towards Covid Normal Report No. 3. ACECQAApprovedQualificationListOSHC.pdf

Australian Institute of Family Studies Melbourne.

Australian Government Department of Education and

Baxter, J., Hand, K., & Sweid, R. (2014). Families’ use of and Training. (2017). 2016 Early Childhood Education needs for school aged care. Paper presented at the and Care National Workforce Census. Canberra Early Childhood Australia Conference, Melbourne.

Australian Government Department of Education Employment

Bell, K., & Cartmel, J. (2014). Stepping back in school age and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011a). care. Journal of Playwork Practice, 1(2), 157-171. Child Care Service Handbook 2011-2012. doi:10.1332/205316214X14111157717370

Australian Government Department of Education Employment

Brennan, D. (1994). The politics of Australian and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011b). My child care: From philanthropy to feminism. time, our place : Framework for school age care in Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Brennan, D., & Adamson, E. (2014). Financing theAustralian Government Department of Education Employment future: An equitable and sustainable approach and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2012a). Educators to early childhood education and care. My Time, Our Place. Educators’ guide to the Framework Retrieved from Sydney: www.aph.gov.au for School Age Care in Australia. Canberra: DEEWR. Cartmel, J. (2007). Outside school hours care andAustralian Government Department of Education Employment schools. (PhD Thesis). Queensland University and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2012b). Promoting of Technology, Retrieved from http://eprints. collaborative partnerships between School Age Care qut.edu.au/17810/ QUT ePrints database. and Schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Cartmel, J. (2019). Space and OSHC. Brisbane:Australian Government Department of Education Skills

National Out of School Hours Alliance and Employment. (2019). Child Care Provider

Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.education. Cartmel, J., Brannelly, K., Phillips, A., & Hurst, B. (2020). gov.au/child-care-provider-handbook-0 Professional standards for after school hours care

in Australia. Child and Youth Services Review. 119.Australian Government Department of Education Skills

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105610 and Employment. (2020). Inclusion Support

Cartmel, J., & Grieshaber, S. (2014). Communicating for Karlsudd, P. (2012). School-age care: An ideological quality in school age care services. Australasian contradiction. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 23-28. 48, 45-51. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu. au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxCologon, K. (n.d.). Inclusion in education: Towards equality for ?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84469727&scope=site students with disability. Children With Disability Australia. Klerfelt, A., & Haglund, B. (2015). Walk-and-talkGifford, J. (1991). What about us? Out of school hours care conversations: A way to elicit children’s perspectives for older school-age children. Canberra, ACT: ACT and prominent discourses in school-age educare. Children’s Services Program Planning Committee.

International Journal of Research in Extended Education,

Gilley, T., Tayler, C., Niklas, F., & Cloney, D. (2015). Too late 2(2), 119-134. doi:10.3224/ijree.v2i2.19550 and not enough for some children: Early childhood KU Children’s Services. (2020). KU Children’s education and care (ECEC) program usage patterns Services. Retrieved from www.ku.com.au in the years before school in Australia. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(1), 9. KU NSW/ACT Inclusion Agency. (2020) Strategic Inclusion Plan (SIP) Barriers, Strategies and Actions - FactGonski Institute for Education. (2020). Fair Play: A project Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.idfm.org. exploring the benefits of structured and unstructured au/WWW_IDFM/media/Media/SIP-Barriers- play opportunities for equity in education. Retrieved Strategies-and-Actions-Fact-Sheet-(1)_1.pdf from https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/research/fair play-project-exploring-benefits-structured-and- Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2014). Children’s right to play. In L. unstructured-opportunities-play-rural-remote Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp. 294-305).Harms, T., Jacobs, E. V., & White, D. R. (2013). School

London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Age Care Environment Rating Scale, updated edition

(SACERS). New York, NY: Teachers College Press Lundback, B., & Falth, L. (2019). Leisure-Time Activities Including Children with Special Needs: A ResearchHurst, B. (2013). Children aged nine to twelve years in

Overview. International Journal for Research Outside School Hours Care in Australia. (Master

on Extended Education, 7(1), 20-39. of Education thesis). University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved from https://minerva- McNamara, J., & Cassells, R. (2010). Who cares for school access-unimelb-edu-au.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ age kids: Staffing trends in outside school hours care. handle/11343/38136 MINERVA Access database. Retrieved from http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/ publications/?publication=who-cares-for-school-age-Hurst, B. (2015). Not always fun: Older children’s play kids-staffing-trends-in-outside-school-hours-care worlds in Australian Outside School Hours Care. Journal of Playwork Practice, 2(1), 7-22. Milton, A C., Stewart, E., Ospina-Pinillos, L., Davenport, T., & Hickie, IB. (2021). Participatory Design of an Activities-Hurst, B. (2017). “Eat, play, go, repeat”: Researching Based Collective Mentoring Program in After-School Care with older primary-age children to re-theorise

Settings: Connect, Promote, and Protect Program, JMIR School Age Care. (Doctor of Philosophy Electronic

Pediatrics and Parenting, 4(2, e22822 doi: 10.2196/22822 document). University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/190706 Ministry of Education and Research Sweden. (2016). OECD Available from EBSCOhost cat00006a database. Review of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use in schools. Retrieved from www.oecd.Hurst, B. (2019). Play and leisure in Australian School org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm. Age Care: Reconceptualizing children’s waiting as a site of play and labour. Childhood, 26(4), 462- Mullan, K. (2013). School’s out - after-school’s in:

doi:10.1177/090756821986531 Children’s after-school care arrangements and activities. In Australian Institute of Family StudiesHurst, B. (2020a). After-school centres. In D. T. Cook (Ed.), The (Ed.), Growing up in Australia: The longitudinal SAGE encyclopedia of children and childhood studies (pp. study of Australian children. Annual statistical report 30-32). London, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE Publications.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Hurst, B. (2020b). Re-theorising the pre

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2020). National Disability adolescent child in School Age Care. Global

Insurance Scheme Operational Guidelines. Retrieved from Studies of Childhood, 10(2), 120-130. https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/operational-guidelines Jinnah-Ghelani, H. & Stoneman, Z. (2009). Elements of Network of Community Activities. (2000). Out of school successful includion for school-age children with disabilities hours care: A case for regulation. Retreived from in child care settings, Child Care in Practice, 15(3), 175 www.netossh.org.au/pages/regease2.html 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575270902891024 Network of Community Activities. (2020). MoneyKane, E. (2015). Playing practices in school-age Matters: Viability of out of school hours care sector childcare:: An action research project in Sweden during the coronavirus pandemic and beyond. and England. (PhD). Stockholm University, Sydney: Network of Community Activities.

NSW Government (Producer). (2019). Out of School United Nations. (2005). Committee on the Rights of the Child:

Hours Care Tenders. Industry Briefing. Retrieved General Comment No. 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early

from https://networkofcommunityactivities.org. Childhood (CRC/C/GC/7). In: United Nations Geneva. au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Final-OSHC- United Nations. (2013). Committee on the Rights of the

Tenders-Industry-Briefing-29-Nov-2019-2.pdf Child: General Comment No. 17. Implementing

Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B. and Alnervik, K. (2015). Why Swedish Child Rights in Early Childhood (CRC/C/ early learning is so much better than Australia’s. Retrieved GC/17). In: United Nations Geneva. from https://theconversation.com/why-swedish-early- Westoby, P., Cox, L., Cartmel, J., Roland, B., Treasure, L., learning-is-so-much-better-than-australias-35033 Blane, A., & Morgan., (2021). Towards a ‘third space’ Noah’s Arc Inc (2019). Response to proposed changes community practice school-aged-care: A learning to Inclusion Support Program (ISP) Guidelines, community and ‘the new neighburhood’. Childhood, Malvern, Victoria: Noah’s Arc Inc 28(2), 309-324, doi:10.1177/097568221996428

Oliver, C., Egharevba, I., & Petrie, P. (2000). Out-of-school Winefield, H., Piteo, A., Kettler, L., Roberts, R., Taylor, A., lives Out-of-school services: London: Stationery Office. Tuckey, M., . . . Lamb, I. (2011). Australian parents’ needs and expectations regarding out of school hoursPálsdóttir, K. (2010). After-school centres for 6-9 year care: A pilot study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, olds in Reykjavic, Iceland. Barn(4), 9-28. 9(3), 196-206. doi:10.1177/1476718X10389142 Queensland Children’s Activities Network (QCAN). (2019). Wong, S., Harrison, L., Whiteford, C., & Rivalland, C. Position paper for the provision of specialist OSHC (2014). Utilisation of early childhood education and services in Queensland. Retrieved from qcan.org.au care services in a nationally representative sample Queensland Children’s Activities Network (QCAN). (n.d.). of Australian children: A focus on disadvantage. Outside School Hours Care professional standards Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(2), 60-69. for educators. Ipswich, Australia: QCAN

Rioseco, P., Baxter, J., & Warren, D. (2017). Kids’ care and activities before and after school. In D. Warren & Daraganova (Eds.), Growing up in Australia - The

Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, annual

statistical report 2017 (pp. 87-98). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).

Scholl, K. G., Dieser, R. B., & Davison, A. (2005). Together We Play: An Ecological Approach to Inclusive Recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 39(4), 299-311.

Services Australia. (2020). Child Care Subsidy. Retrieved

from https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/ individuals/services/centrelink/child-care-subsidy

Simoncini, K., Cartmel, J., & Young, A. (2015). Children’s voices in Australian school age care: What do they think about afterschool care? International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 3(1), 114-131. doi:10.3224/ijree.v3i1.19584

Sims, M. (2003). SUPS workers’ perspective of child care quality. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(3), 25-31.

Smith, K., Tesar, M., & Myers, C. Y. (2016). Edu-capitalism and the governing of early childhood education and care in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(1), 123-135.

Toumbourou, J. W., Hall, J., Varcoe, J., & Leung, R. (2014). Review of key risk and protective factors for child development and wellbeing (antenatal to age 25). Australian Research Alliance for Children and Young People.

Victorian Inclusion Agency. (2021). Impact evaluation

VIA impact on NQS outcomes. Victorian Inclusion Agency. Preston, Australia.

United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.

Appendices These are resources that can APPENDIX 1. support the partnership between

Excerpts from School Age Care Environmental Rating

OSHC services and schools. Scale (SACERS) (Harms, et al., 2013). The elements of SACERS would help OSHC and Schools to create environments to support best practice in OSHC services that would support children and their families.

Item    Item/        Inadequate      Minimal          Good                  Excellent

No. Subscales

1          Indoor space       Insufficient amount    Sufficient amount of      Ample indoor space for      Space is aesthetically pleasing

of space for number   indoor space for number   number of children enrolled   (Ex: light, open, airy feeling).

of children enrolled.    of children enrolled.         (Ex: spacious areas allow      Natural light can be

Space lacks          Adequate lighting,          children to move freely;       controlled (Ex: adjustable

adequate lighting,      ventilation, temperature   space for furnishings and      blinds or curtains).

ventilation,             control, and acceptable     activities without limiting     Ventilation can be controlled

temperature           noise level.                   children’s movement).         (Ex: windows open;

control, or is         Space in good repair (Ex:  Good ventilation, some        ventilating fan used by staff).

excessively noisy.      floors free of damage;      natural lighting through

Space in poor          walls in good condition;    windows or skylight.

repair (Ex: peeling    no peeling paint).         Space well maintained (Ex:

paint on walls and floors cleaned, carpeting ceiling; rough, vacuumed, trash cleared). damaged floors).

2         Space for gross   No outdoor or       Some space accessible    Ample space outdoors       Ample, pleasant, and varied

motor activities   indoor space          outdoors or indoors       and some space             space both outdoors and

specifically used        for gross motor play       indoors accessible daily       indoors available daily.

for gross motor      on a daily basis.             (Ex: gym, yard).             Younger children have

activities.            Outdoor space has        Outdoor space has at        a separate space from

Outdoor space      some protection            least one soft and one        older children.

completely lacks      from the elements.        hard surface suitable for    NA permitted

protection from the different types of play Convenient access to elements (Ex: lacks (Ex: asphalt for basketball; outdoor space. shade, windbreak, protective cushioning drainage). under climbing equipment).

9         Access to host    School-age child      School-age child care      School-age child care has    School-age care program

facilities          care program has     program has some        ample dedicated space for    can arrange for exclusive

no space dedicated    dedicated space.           storage and administration.   use of a number of shared

to its exclusive use     (Ex: some storage         School-age program            facilities on a regular basis

(Ex: program has       for materials).                   is the primary user of         (Ex: weekly access to school

no storage or office   School-age program      some shared play space      computer centre or library;

space, is housed       has some access to         (Ex: school-age room        access to community pool

in rooms used by      indoor play space in      may be used by another        in recreation centre).

other groups earlier    shared facilities when      group at times).             School-age care program

or later in the day)    the space is not in use     Space for conferences       has its own classroom.

by the primary user (Ex:   and adult group meetings    Program has individual

uses school cafeteria          is satisfactory (Ex: dual      conference and adult

or classrooms for          or shared use does not       group meeting space that

indoor play space; uses    make scheduling difficult;       is conveniently located,

church Sunday school      privacy is assured; adult-     comfortable and separate

rooms on weekdays).       sized furniture is available).   from space used for children.

Item Item/ Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent

No. Subscales

35       Communication  No communication   Some communication      School-age child care staff   School-age child care

between        between school-     between school-age      and classroom teachers       staff and classroom

program staff    age child care           child care staff and the    communicate monthly        teachers communicate

and children’s      staff and children’s     children’s classroom       about academic issues (Ex:   bi-weekly about general

classroom        classroom teachers    teachers about practical    special projects, subject      academic and social issues

teachers         about children        concerns (Ex: reporting    matter being studied,         affecting the children.

and/or program.       absence, exposure to      problems with homework).    Joint planning done for

contagious illness).        School-age child care staff    individual children, as needed.

Some communication and classroom teachers about problems children communicate monthly are having in the school about children’s social/ or after-school setting. emotional issues (Ex: classroom behaviour, home situations).

Inclusion   Provisions for    No modifications      Minor modifications        Staff have information        Consultation with professional

Specific    exceptional      made to           made to the physical      from available assessments   special educators regularly

Elements   children          the physical          environment, program,     or request assessment        available to assist in planning

42                         environment,         and/or schedule to         of child’s needs.                individual programs for

program, and/        permit child to attend      Staff use assessment         exceptional children.

or schedule for         (Ex: exceptional child       information about needs     Centre staff follow

exceptional children.   allowed to play alone       of exceptional children       through with activities and

No attempt to              if not able to join         and make modifications       interactions recommended

assess child’s         group activities).             in environment, program,    by professional special

needs or to find     Some attempt to find     and schedule so that         educators to help children

out about available    out about child’s needs     children can participate      meet identified goals.

assessments.          or to find out about          in many activities.

available assessments.

43          Individualisation    Little or no         Some individualisation    Much individualisation        Objectives for children

individualisation       provided (Ex: separate     provided in play             with special needs are

(Ex: same activities,    toileting scheduled          activities and routines.        incorporated into free play

procedures,            for children needing        Children participate         and planned activities.

schedule,               special help).               successfully in tasks           Staff use interactions with

environment, and      Staff make minor         and activities that             children, room arrangement,

consequences         modifications so that       appropriately challenge        materials, and schedule

for all children).        children can be included     their abilities.                to meet individual needs

Children often fail       in some activities.        One-to-one and small-       (Ex: raised picture labels

tasks or cannot                               group activities provided in   on toy shelves for visually-

participate in                                      addition to regular program   impaired child; staff sign

ongoing activities.                                  for exceptional children.      so hearing-impaired child

can participate fully). Independence encouraged through environmental modifications, appropriate activities, and teaching strategies.

44         Multiple           Staff do not            Staff provide some        Repeated opportunities      Frequent use of naturally

opportunities     provide repeated      opportunities for           for learning and              occurring routines to

for learning and   opportunities          learning new skills.          practicing skills.               reinforce learning objectives.

practicing skills    for learning and     New skills usually        Some instances of           Frequent use of naturally

practicing skills        practiced in special             skill practice during           occurring events to reinforce

identified as goals      activities child               naturally occurring            learning objectives.

for the child.         does alone.                 routines and events.

Item Item/ Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent

No. Subscales

45       Engagement        Little appropriate    Some appropriate          Children are appropriately     Transitions between activities,

involvement (Ex:      involvement during        involved most of the time     routine care, and play times

much time spent       staff-directed             during staff-directed         are arranged so children

waiting for other       activities (Ex: children       activities, routines,           maintain involvement (Ex:

children or staff;      pay attention during      and play times.                children continue to play

child with special      small-group work).         Staff frequently                 until next activity is ready).

needs wandering     Some appropriate           interact with children       Many alternative activities

around).              involvement during       and provide attractive,        available for children to use

routines and play times.    developmentally             independently or in small

appropriate materials groups (Ex: child who loses to maintain active interest in story is allowed involvement (Ex: staff to build with Lego). guide wandering child to attractive play area; help non-mobile child change activity when ready).

46         Interacting      No attempt made     Occasional efforts       Many efforts to promote    Many efforts to promote

with peers       by staff to promote    to promote peer          peer interactions at          peer interactions during

peer interactions.      interactions, mostly       planned group times (Ex:      free choice activities.

No peer interaction     in special activities          child given chance to         Frequent efforts to include

occurs.               not related to ongoing     answer question at story      child with special needs in

events (Ex: asking for      time, to help someone        appropriate peer interactions

and passing things done    else set the table).           throughout the day.

in a special small group, Some peer interaction but not during lunch). encouraged during free Some effort to promote choice activities. peer interaction in ongoing events.

47        Promoting         Staff do not            Staff provide some         Staff adjust speech           Staff frequently promote

communication   encourage children’s   communication            to children’s level of            children’s communication (Ex:

communication        opportunities during       understanding.               give verbal descriptions of

(Ex: do not ask        structured activities,      Communication with         ongoing activities, expand

questions, ignore      using alternative            children includes much      on children’s talk, prompt

children’s attempts    communication options     social conversation and       or model communication,

to communicate).    when necessary (Ex:       information sharing.         and reinforce children’s

Communication       communication board       Staff ask developmentally    attempts to communicate).

to children is         used during snack time).    appropriate questions         Staff use routines and

primarily directive.     Staff occasionally         and attend to                   activities throughout the

Staff do not provide   encourage children’s         children’s answers.          day to reach appropriate

communication       communication outside     Alternative communication   communication goals

options required       of structured activities.    options used                  for the children.

by child with throughout the day. special needs Staff involve other children (Ex: do not face in communication with hearing-impaired child with special needs. child when talking, do not provide communication board or use signing to child who is unable to speak).

APPENDIX 2 Theorise

What are the theories that help us here? Guided Conversation to open up dialogue between OSHC From where can these be drawn? providers and School Management/ Administration.
Can we draw ways of understanding from philosophyThese conversations are a reflective process based or cultural understandings?on the COCR model of critical thinking (Cartmel, et al., 2015) which are intended to transform practice. • What are the values being exemplified here? This sample conversation is based on the material contained in the resource Leading Learning Circles for Think Otherwise Educators involved in Study (Cartmel, et al., 2015). • How else could we think? What has been revealed? CONVERSATION devised using - Cartmel, J., Macfarlane. • What could we prioritise that we hadn’t before in relation K., Casley, M., and Smith. K. (2015) Leading learning to making OSHC more accessible, more inclusive? circles for educators engaged in learning, Brisbane: • Where are we now – what new insight do we have? Griffith University and Department of Education, p 25 • What do we know now that will help us think and see differently?Available for download http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/ bitstream/handle/10072/69381/104005_1.pdf;jsessionid • What will we do differently? =318BDF19AC25D7B81BF2CEF696BE9AA9?sequence=1

Closing

A conversation about inclusive approaches Draw the ideas to a close and thank everyone for their participation.

Opening

Tell the participants that you are going to have a conversation about taking an inclusive practice and approaches that underpin children access to before and after school care services. The focus on children’s physical, personal, social, emotional and spiritual wellbeing as well as cognitive aspects of learning as it pertains to lifelong learning and the capacity and potential to become effective citizens. School age care settings are places to learn about self, others and the world – in other words learning about living and learning through living.

Deconstruct

Describe the situation or experience as we currently approach inclusive access for children in our school community.
What practices, processes are being used here? What have we done here that we always do?
What is the context – what else is happening for us, for the families, for the child, for community, for colleagues?

Confront

Are there ways of doing things in this situation that we should confront?
What can we do to confront taken for granted ways of acting? Are there ways that we ask them to conform? How we conforming to others?
What is expected by others – what is woven into this situation that is difficult to confront?

Glossary Before and After School Care (BASC): Care, leisure and play provided in the hours before and after school.

Educare: an international term used by researchers to describe forms of school age care similar to those provided in Australia and characterised by play-based approaches.

Educator: Person who works with children in a School Age Care service.

Extended Education: an international term used by researchers to embrace the range of institutional learning and care opportunities available to children and young people outside of regular school lessons.

MTOP framework for school age care: My Time Our Place: Framework for School Age Care services in Australia. Curriculum framework used to guide OSHC services.

National Quality Framework (NQF): Government

regulatory framework that provides uniform standards for all Australian childcare services including School Age Care.

National Quality Standard (NQS): Minimum

operating standards for all Australian childcare services including School Age Care.

Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) or Out

Of School Hours (OOSH): Commonly used

Australian terms for School Age Care.

School Age Care (SAC): Services that provide care, leisure and play for children aged 5 to 12 years in the hours before school, after school and during school vacations.

Strategic Inclusion Plan (SIP): a self-guided inclusion assessment and planning tool for services to develop, in collaboration with the Inclusion Agency (IA), which includes strategies for improving and embedding inclusive practice in line with the National Quality Standards.

No machine-readable text was extracted from this page.

00233E No.

Submission 4247 — Ms Kate Alexander (Attachment 5) — NDIS Future Generations Bill

New South Wales

Department of Education

Associate Professor Jennifer Cartmel and Dr Bruce Hurst

Griffith University, Brisbane

Contents

Professional Standards for Outside SchoolSchool Care in Australia 5

Hours Care 17

How Outside School Hours Care is

Science Collection and the Health Collection), Proquest

(Academic Research Library, Health and Medical Complete,

Psychology Journals, and Social Science Journals),

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Cambridge

Journals Online, Expanded Academic (ASAP), PsychINFO,

Scopus (Elsevier), Intute [Social Sciences], Informaworld,

Australian Government and Politics database, SAGE

Journals Online, EBSCO Host, Australian Journals Online,

ISI Web of Knowledge, OECD Publications Online, and

OSHC (Australian Government Department of Education

grounds (National Quality Authority IT System). Services

Government Productivity Commission, 2014a). Some of

Figure 2: Elements of MTOP Framework for School Age

Professional Standards for

Outside School Hours Care

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority in Australia: How Australia is faring: Department

www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/ ER Meeting, International Journal for Research

Survey Towards Covid Normal Report No. 3. ACECQAApprovedQualificationListOSHC.pdf

Australian Government Department of Education and

Australian Government Department of Education Employment

Australian Government Department of Education Employment

National Out of School Hours Alliance and Employment. (2019). Child Care Provider

in Australia. Child and Youth Services Review. 119.Australian Government Department of Education Skills

International Journal of Research in Extended Education,

London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Age Care Environment Rating Scale, updated edition

Overview. International Journal for Research Outside School Hours Care in Australia. (Master

Settings: Connect, Promote, and Protect Program, JMIR School Age Care. (Doctor of Philosophy Electronic

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2020). National Disability adolescent child in School Age Care. Global

Hours Care Tenders. Industry Briefing. Retrieved General Comment No. 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early

Tenders-Industry-Briefing-29-Nov-2019-2.pdf Child: General Comment No. 17. Implementing

Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, annual

Services Australia. (2020). Child Care Subsidy. Retrieved

Victorian Inclusion Agency. (2021). Impact evaluation

United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on

Excerpts from School Age Care Environmental Rating

No. Subscales

No. Subscales

No. Subscales

APPENDIX 2 Theorise

Closing

Opening

Deconstruct

Confront

National Quality Framework (NQF): Government

National Quality Standard (NQS): Minimum

Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) or Out

Of School Hours (OOSH): Commonly used

CRICOS