More than ‘just convenient care’:

What the Research Tells Us About Equitable Access to Outside School Hours Care

A report prepared by:

• Associate Professor Jennifer Cartmel*
• Dr Bruce Hurst Griffith University, Brisbane

Author contact details

\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

Contents

1. Executive Summary [Page: 2]

2. Introduction [Page: 4]

3. Methodology [Page: 4]

4. Findings [Page: 5]

4.1 The development of Before and After School Care in Australia [Page: 5]

• Government regulation of OSHC in Australia [Page: 6]
• My Time, Our Place – The approved learning framework for Before and After School Care [Page: 7]

4.2 Priority Groups in OSHC [Page: 8]

• Defining ‘priority groups’ [Page: 8]
• Who uses Outside School Hours Care? [Page: 9]
• Government programs [Page: 10]
• What sort of OSHC program? [Page: 11]
• International Programs for priority groups [Page: 12]
• Should older children be considered a priority group? [Page: 12]
• Summary [Page: 12]

4.3 The Benefits of OSHC [Page: 13]

• Research into benefits of OSHC for Children [Page: 13]
• Research from Early Childhood [Page: 13]
• Possible benefits for children from priority groups [Page: 13]

4.4 The Image of OSHC [Page: 13]

• ‘Just care’ [Page: 13]
• ‘Not core business’ [Page: 14]
• A place of fun and friendship [Page: 14]
• How Outside School Hours Care is viewed matters [Page: 15]

4.5 OSHC and school partnerships [Page: 15]

• Critical partnership between OSHC and schools [Page: 15]
• Case study: Swedish approach to OSHC and school management – a national curriculum [Page: 16] Implications for Priority Groups [Page: 16]

4.6 OSHC Workforce [Page: 16]

• A constantly changing workforce [Page: 16]
• Professional Standards for Outside School Hours Care [Page: 17] Summary [Page: 18]

5. Conclusion and recommendations [Page: 19]

6. References [Page: 21]

7. Appendices [Page: 24]

8. Glossary [Page: 28]

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 424 - Attachment 5

Executive Summary

Outside school hours care (OSHC) is a significant site of care, play and learning for children aged five to twelve years in New South Wales, Australia. There has been an increased level of demand for care linked to workforce participation particularly of women. The growth in New South Wales services mirrors national and international trends. The growth of services also has the potential to support the development and wellbeing of children when its value as a site of play and learning is recognised.

This report has a particular focus on equitable and inclusive access for children and each of these elements deserve attention to ensure that all children benefit from OSHC and parents feel supported to utilise the services. Attention is given to the Swedish educare system which has a more seamless approach to schooling and OSHC provision. Recommendations include more research about the OSHC as a site for children’s development and the partnerships between OSHC, schools and families. In particular the focus will be on children from vulnerable circumstances such as those at risk of abuse or neglect, of working sole parents and families requiring additional support to help raise their children. A deeper understanding about the value of OSHC will enhance community perceptions and commitment to the utilisation of services to contribute to children’s wellbeing and development.

The 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.

Table 1 – Recommendations from Academic Literature Review

• trial resource toolkits to support OSHC providers inform their communities of benefits via department website.
• work with sector stakeholders such as peak bodies to discuss ways to promote benefits. | | Promoting OSHC as a site of play and friendship rather than just convenient care | 4 Research needs to be conducted into the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC. | NSW Department of Education should develop collaborative initiatives with the early childhood education directorate and schools directorate, with input from the OSHC sector, to support further research and strategic projects. | | | 5 Explore ways to promote OSHC as a site of play and friendship to children. | NSW Department of Education should trial resource toolkits specifically designed to support OSHC providers to incorporate opportunities to build play into their programs via department website. | | Supporting children with additional needs | 6 Support OSHC services to improve their approaches to working with older children. | Future work conducted by the NSW Department of Education BASC Reform Design and Delivery team should incorporate the considerations of this Review into its planned approach to solutions (onsite, transport access, NDIS support, etc). | | | 7 Review existing inclusion supports for mainstream OSHC services to build the capacity of services to care for children with high support needs.| | Exploring how the benefits of specialist schooling can be provided |8 Explore possible benefits of providing transportation between specialist schools and mainstream OSHC. | | |9 Explore increased provision of OSHC at specialist schools. | | | OSHC perception and image |10 Greater awareness needs to be created about the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC with school principals and management. | The NSW Department of Education BASC Policy team should:
• work with its Schools directorate to develop policy objectives that support school leadership teams to ‘shift mindsets’ in relation to OSHC.
• explore ways to work with universities to develop courses about partnerships between OSHC and Schools available to principals and OSHC coordinators/providers as part of Master of Education/MBA. | | | 11 Explore ways of supporting school principals to recognise the benefits of positive partnerships with OSHC coordinators and providers. | | | OSHC Workforce | 12 Introduce the use of Professional Standards for OSHC educators. |NSW Department of Education should: • consider ways to disseminate the Professional Standards for OSHC Educators to all services with suggestions for implementation within services.• form a working group to review, develop and consider mandating qualifications for the OSHC workforce.• collaborate with education and training providers to ensure recognition of the importance of field placement.| | | 13 Review the qualification requirements for OSHC services to ensure that the workforce has the skills and knowledge to care for children with high support needs. |

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

2. Introduction

\This literature review is a scoping of Australian and international literature to provide comparative national and international approaches towards OSHC access and provision, highlighting best practice and innovative approaches to facilitate equitable and inclusive access. The review also provides practical and relevant recommendations for next steps to help OSHC providers, schools and parents to support children to access care, particularly those from the identified priority cohorts.\n

3. Methodology

\Using a preliminary research paper written by the NSW Department of Education as a foundation, the authors undertook a systematic literature review examining approaches to equitable and inclusive access within OSHC services. A combination of peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, Government and policy documents was used due to limited relevant research available about Australian OSHC services. The literature was sourced electronically 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, Psychology Journals, and Social Science Journals), Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Cambridge Journals Online, Expanded Academic (ASAP), PsychINFO, s \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 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\n- • Priority groups in Outside School Hours Care\n- • The benefits of Outside School Hours Care\n- • The image of Outside School Hours Care\n- • Professional partnerships in Outside School Hours Care\n- • The Outside School Hours Care workforce.\n

4. Findings

4.1 The development of Before and After School Care in Australia

Before and After School Care (BASC) services operate in the hours before and after primary school, and serve a range of functions centred on providing custodial care of children on behalf of parents who are mostly working or studying. BASC is part of a broader suite of services called Outside School Hours Care (OSHC). OSHC includes vacation care and curriculum day programs that operate on pupil-free days and school holidays as well as before and after school hour sessions. For the purpose of this review, the primary term used will be OSHC. Almost all research investigates OSHC more broadly rather than drawing distinctions between its various components. When appropriate, research relating specifically to BASC will be identified.

The provision of OSHC has a long history in Australia. Cartmel (2007) explains that activities have been provided after school since the early 20th century. These early programs differ from contemporary services in that they were recreational rather than focused on care. Care-focused programs began to grow in the early 1980s with increasing participation of women in the workplace (Brennan, 1994; Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014).

The number of OSHC settings and children participating in OSHC has grown rapidly over the last four decades (Baxter, Hand, & Sweid, 2014; Winefield et al., 2011). According to the Report on Government Services 2020, approximately 459,730 children aged between 6–12 attended Australian Government CCS approved child care services in 2019. This is around 27% higher than attendance figures of 362,123 for the same age group five years earlier in 2014, and almost 80% higher from 2010 figures (257,724). For NSW, approximately 148,665 children aged between 6–12 attended Government CCS approved child care services in 2019, which is 37% higher than in 2014 figures of 108,222 and approximately 85 per cent higher than attendance recorded for 2010 (68,403).

With these figures only accounting for children aged six and older accessing approved service child care subsidies, it is likely that the figure could be somewhat higher. However, this is nonetheless a significant number of Australian primary-age children attending OSHC; across most Australian states and territories, these figures point to around a 20% proportion of the estimated resident population, which is almost double the proportion from a decade earlier. In the context of this review, it is uncertain what proportion of these children are from priority groups (these groups will be defined in a dedicated section).

The Framework acknowledges the importance of play and leisure in children’s learning and development

OSHC serves multiple purposes. According to Hurst (2019) these purposes have experienced ongoing transformation since its inception. In a contemporary, Australian context, OSHC serves three main functions: safety, play and education. Government regards OSHC as primarily a service that provides safe custodial care of children to support parents’ workforce participation. However, OSHC is increasingly also seen as a site of play and education, purposes that are foremost in My Time Our Place, Australia’s curriculum framework for OSHC (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2011b).

The Framework acknowledges the importance of play and leisure in children’s learning and development and that their learning is not limited to any particular time or place (p. 3)

Whilst the care-based workforce function is no doubt important from an economic perspective, this should not trivialise the role of OSHC in relation to play and education. Safety, play and education are all recognised as rights in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a treaty to which Australia is signatory (United Nations, 1989). Some children spend up to 5.5 hours per day in OSHC, highlighting its importance in providing a setting for play and education in the hours outside school (Network, 2000). Children in particular value OSHC for the play it provides, stating that fun and friends are the factors they enjoy most (Hurst, 2013; Hurst, 2017; Simoncini, Cartmel & Young, 2015). Once again, Article 12 of the UNCRC is a reminder that children’s views about OSHC are important and demand consideration. The purposes performed by OSHC services, as well as how these services are perceived by children and families, are critical in this review given its examination of how more families can benefit from participation. These aspects will be explored in more detail later in the review.

The ways in which OSHC is delivered can differ greatly across settings. In NSW, approximately 68% of OSHC services are located on government and non-government school grounds (National Quality Authority IT System). Services often operate in makeshift spaces that are adapted but not designed for the delivery of OSHC. In some instances, OSHC staff share a space with other school programs which requires OSHC staff to set up and take down program materials and resources each day (Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). Services are operated by a range of possible agencies. Whilst some services are managed and delivered by schools, the marketised approaches adopted by successive federal governments means that OSHC appears to be increasingly delivered by large corporate providers.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

Services are also often delivered by church parishes, local governments, parent committees of management (Hurst, 2017). In NSW government school sites, management and operation of OSHC is currently determined by a competitive tender process that opens management to a range of providers (NSW Government, 2019). According to the ACEQ A National Register and TimeSeries Splits, 30.12% of all OSHCs in NSW are delivered by single-service Approved Providers. This is marginally down from 33.79% in Q3 2013. As at Q2 2020, 53.02% of all OSHCs were managed by a private for profit, compared to 35.17% in 2014.

it is important to recognise that there is no single way to conceptualise and deliver OSHC. Before and after school programs are delivered in many countries including Sweden, Denmark, the US, England, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Iceland, Norway and Canada (Bae, 2018; Hurst, 2020a). The types of program delivery emerge from each country’s unique cultural, historical and political contexts (Bae, 2018; Hurst, 2017). ‘Extended education’ is being increasingly adopted as a universal term by most academics who research OSHC settings. It is not possible to capture the diverse modes of OSHC provision globally in the context of this review. Helpful summaries are provided by Hurst (2020a) and Bae (2018), who attempts to categories different models of extended education, some of which are summarised in Table 2:

Table 2: International Categories of OSHC Provision (Bae, 2018)

OSHC services are subject to the same system of regulation and monitoring as early childhood education and care services such as Long Day Care, Preschool and Family Day Care, although there are important differences. Regulations are relatively new to OSHC. The sector was first subjected to accreditation when it was a late addition to the Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme in 2004, joining a number of years after other early childhood service types (see Figure 1 Timeline). In 2009, OSHC joined early childhood services in the National Quality Framework (NQF), which was the centrepiece of the early childhood reforms introduced by the Rudd federal government. The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) now oversees the NQF (2019). The NQF consists of a number of components, each of which govern some aspect of OSHC provision. The National Law provides a set of universal standards that services are required to meet. due to Australia’s federated system of government, there can be differences in laws across states and territories. All states and territories except WA are subject to the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010. In NSW, OSHC is subject to the Children (Education and Care Services National Law Application) Act 2010 (ACEQ A, 2019). the national Laws are supported by National Regulations and these apply mostly to the minimum safety and physical requirements that services are required to meet. They cover matters such as safety standards and processes, staff ratios and qualifications, and space requirements. In addition to laws and regulations, services are also subjected to the National Quality Standard (NQ S). The NQS provides a series of benchmarks spread across seven quality areas that are considered necessary for quality outcomes for young children. In addition to health and safety outcomes, the NQS also makes provisions for childrens learning outcomes partnerships with families service governance physical environments curriculum and pedagogical practices (ACECQA, 2019) .in additional o s h c services are also required to apply the pedagogic principles outlined in My Time Our Place Framework For School Age care in australia d e ew r ,

All registered OSHC services are subject to regular assessment against National law and regulation’s and the nq s b y state regulatory authorities and overseen by ACECQ A. australian os hc belongs to bae’s ‘school age educare category which applies the swedish term for oshc. Services of this type are characterised by play-based approach

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 424 - Attachment 5

[Image not converted to Markdown – “Timeline” – check the source PDF page for the actual content]

The timeline above illustrates key events in the development of the Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) system in Australia.

Whilst the National Quality Framework 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 MTOP Framework recognises that alongside other children’s settings, OSHC provides children with opportunities to maximise their potential and develop a foundation for future success in life. The MTOP Framework is conceptualised as providing a holistic approach to OSHC pedagogy.

A school age care program encompasses all the interactions, experiences, routines and events, planned and unplanned, which occur in an environment designed to support wellbeing and foster children’s learning and development (DEEWR, 2011b, p.6).

The MTOP Framework provides a universal set of intersecting Principles, Practice and Learning Outcomes to guide the practices of OSHC professionals (Figure 2).

[Image not converted to Markdown – “MTOP Elements Diagram” – check the source PDF page for the actual content]

This review will not explore each of these Principles, Practices and Learning Outcomes in detail. It operates from the assumption that each element is fundamental to the question of how to improve access to OSHC for high priority groups. The most relevant details of the MTOP Framework will be drawn upon to inform analysis and discussion. It is tempting when considering questions of access to prioritise operational, practical details such as pricing of services, physical infrastructure and availability of spaces; but the holistic view promoted by the MTOP Framework is a reminder that human factors are just as relevant. For example, the following are all directly relevant when considering diverse requirements:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS For Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

• Principle 1: Providing children with secure, respectful and reciprocal relationships
• Principle 2: Working in partnership with families and school communities
• Principle 4: Having respect for diverse family contexts, practices, values and beliefs

Practice: Ongoing critical reflection and evaluation of the ways that professionals work with children and families, and the environments they provide (DEEWR, 2011b).

One of the requirements of Australia’s regulatory regime is that OSHC services use a recognised learning framework to inform their practices (ACECQA, 2019). The MTOP Framework is not prescriptive. It provides a broad set of inciples around which professionals form their practices in ways that meet the unique requirements of their families, schools and communities (DEEWR, 2011b). Whilst OSHC services are able to use other learning frameworks such as the Early Years Learning Framework, the vast majority of services have found their practice on the sector-specific OSHC Framework (ACECQA, 2011b). All recommendations in this review will herefore account for the MTOP Framework and its contents.

The MTOP Framework is also accompanied by supporting documents. The Educators’ Guide to the Framework for School Age Care in Australia (DEEWR, 2012a) adds important detail to support understanding and implementation of the Principles, Practices and Learning Outcomes. There is also Promoting Collaborative Partnerships Between School Age Care Services and Schools (DEEWR, 2012b), a text that seeks to provide guidance on how to collaborate positively with schools and school management bodies, an issue that has imacted on school age care delivery for decades (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). It is noted that between 2019–2020, the NSW Department of Education partnered with Early Childhood Australia to provide a free, online program to all OSHC educators which focuses on unpacking the MTOP Framework (Note: the program is currently under review).

Whilst stakeholders within the OSHC sector are mostly accepting of the principles in the MTOP Framework and the holistic view it takes of the purpose of OSHC services, it is also worth noting that not all stakeholders share this perspective. Simoncini et al. (2015, p. 116) point out that “community perceptions have yet to catch up to this vision of SAC (OSHC)”. Five years since the publication of is paper, this review ponders whether this perception altered significantly in 2020, particularly with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a significant, even devastating, impact on the provision of OSHC.

Priority groups in OSHC

The notion of a priority group has long-standing acceptance in Australian education and care services. For at least the past two decades, up until 2018, the Australian Government had a set of published Priority of Access Guidelines for federally funded child care services, including OSHC. The 2010–11 version of the guidelines mandated that services sure priority of access to the following groups:

Priority 1—a child at risk of serious abuse or neglect

Priority 2—a child of a single parent who satisfies, or of parents who both satisfy, the work, training, study test under section 14 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

Priority 3—any other child.

Within these main categories, priority should lso be given to the following children:

• children in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families
• children in families which include a disabled person
• children in families which include an individual whose adjusted taxable income does not exceed the lower income threshold or who or whose partner are on income support
• children in families with a non-English speaking background
• children in socially isolated families
• children of single parents (DEEWR, 2011a, p. 68).

The 2010–11 version of the Child Care Services Handbook, defines ‘priority’ as belonging to a group most in need of care. In the current version of the guidelines, the mandated aspects have been removed by the Australian Government, instead opening it up to services to “set their own rules for deciding who receives a place” (Australian Government Department of Education Skills and Employment, 2019, p. 51). The current version of the Handbook instead applies a looser definition, naming children at risk of abuse and neglect, children of working sole parents, and children of families ‘most at need’ as priority groups (p. 51).

these two definitions appear to be informed by distinct principles. One is that parents require custodial care for their children whilst they are working or studying and therefore unable to care for them. Another principle concerns mitigating effects of disadvantage & marginalisation.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

[Image not converted to Markdown – “Timeline of inclusion support” – check the source PDF page for the actual content]

The development of these responses to priority groups was paralleled with the development of systemic approach known as inclusion support. Since the 1990s, there have been a succession of federally-funded inclusion support programs, which are depicted in Figure 3 and described in greater detail later in the review.

Who uses Outside School Hours Care?

There is little denying that working parents need OSHC. However, as a cohort, this group are already the most prominent users of OSHC. Families where both parents work are currently the most likely to use OSHC, whereas those where no parent works are amongst the least (Rioseco et al., 2017). Therefore, when considering questions about how to improve access to OSHC for those who do not use it, attention needs to be directed towards those who are less likely to use it and will benefit most. Given the lack of peer-reviewed research investigating OSHC, it is therefore unsurprising that there is almost none directly addressing OSHC and children from priority groups. For that reason, the analysis in this section necessarily draws mostly on research relating to early childhood services and international forms of school age care. One of the few texts that provides insights into priority groups in OSHC is the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) (Rioseco et al., 2017). The report demonstrates that priority groups are among those least likely to use OSHC. Vulnerable children are less likely to participate in formal activities in the hours outside school, which includes OSHC, increasing the likelihood that they will be unsupervised (Mullan, 2013). Family income is a significant predictor of who is likely to attend. The odds of attending OSHC are tripled among children living in households in the middle third, and 7.4 times higher for children in households with the highest equivalised incomes (Rioseco et al., 2017). This is replicated in family structures with families where both parents work amongst the most likely to attend and those where no parents work the least likely. However, the group where a child is most likely to attend is in sole parent households where the mother works full time. This demonstrates that whilst income appears most significant although not necessarily causational, there are other complexities that motivate parents to use OSHC. The importance of income manifests in other ways. Children from the wealthiest third of government schools are 4.8 times more likely to attend than the poorest third (Rioseco et al., 2017).

A range of factors including:

• There were no places available for children with disabilities.
• Staff were not adequately trained to care for children with disabilities.
• Costs were too great and/or funding was not sufficient.

• Services were not registered for support via the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
• There was inadequate transport available to and from the service. Government programs There are a number of existing government programs that arguably make OSHC more accessible for priority groups. Child Care Subsidy (CCS) is a national program that provides fee assistance for parents who use all forms of child care. These rates of subsidy are determined by family income andwhich also reported encountering some OSHCservices that were not adequately trained and/orunreceptive to including children with disabilities. The cost of CCS is likely a barrier for manypriority families given that they likely experience multipleforms of disadvantage, but it is unclear if CCS addressesthat barrier as there is no substantive data to provide an insight(Wong, Harrison, Whiteford, & Rivalland, 2014). Swedish research also provides insights into priority groupsand the use of OSHC. Swedish fritidshem (leisure homes) arestructured and conceptualised similarly to Australian OSHC, and children with intellectual disabilities and from other prioritygroups are less likely to attend (Karlsudd, 2012; Lundback & Falth, 2019). Lundback and Falth’s (2019) literature reviewprovides numerous examples of the complexities prioritygroups face in accessing Swedish fritidshem. There areexamples of children in need of special support being refusedaccess on the basis that they are ‘unsuited’ to the fritidshemenvironment. Gadler (Cited in, Lundback & Falth, 2019) argues our own Inclusion Support Program can provide fundingfor additional educators, the program does not pay the fullcost of the worker, which may be a barrier. These factorsare likely exacerbated by the watering down of the Priorityof Access Guidelines in Australia which no longer positionsattending OSHC as a right for those with the most need. The term ‘additional needs’ refers broadly to childrenwith disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderchildren and children from diverse cultural backgrounds. Theprogram seeks to accomplish its aims in a number of ways:
• support eligible mainstream Early Childhood Educationand Care (ECEC) services to improve their capacityand capability to provide quality inclusive practicesfor all children, to address access and participationbarriers and to support the inclusion of children withinformation about Indigenous communities. Research from the early childhood and care sector givesfurther cause to suspect that other priority groups fail touse OSHC. Brennan and Adamson (2014) report that childrenwho are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, have non-Englishspeaking backgrounds or have disabilities are less likelystudies relate to early childhood service types, it isreasonable to suggest that families from Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander and non-English speaking backgroundsor who have children with disabilities will also belikely to attend OSHC.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

are unlikely to attend OSHC at a mainstream school. It is needs to register with the NDIS, which anecdotally few mainstream services appear to have done. Children who attend mainstream OSHC at their own school might benefit indirectly from NDIS funding attached to the school for things like mobility and communication aids. It is highly probable that if more work was undertaken tono research to support this. One small, unpublished study by the Victorian Inclusion Agency (VIA) (2021) provides some insights into the effectiveness of the ISP. The VIA foundthat services who had at least one visit from an IP weremore likely to achieve an ‘exceeding’ rating in their NationalQuality Framework outcome. Whilst far from conclusive, thisprovides some evidence that engagement with the ISP canresult in better standards of OSHC delivery, which benefitsall children, including those with high support needs.

an earlier iteration of the ISP was the federally fundedSupplementary Services (SUPS) Worker program. Sims(2003) provides first-person accounts from SUPSworkers of their experiences supporting the inclusionof priority children in OSHC and ECEC. The examples ofpoor-quality practice come mostly from OSHC servicessuggestions of what constitutes quality practice withpriority children and families:

• Being positive about and accepting of the child
• Being prepared
• Positive interactions with the child
• Being flexible willing to learn (Sims, 2003).

The provision of specialist OSHC proposed by QCAN is thefocus of a pilot program being conducted by the Victoriandepartment of Education. Since 2018, the program hasoperated at five specialist and one mainstream school. Fundingfor the program has supported additional staff, specialisedresources, training for staff and provision of excursions. Anothe important program is the National Disability InsuranceScheme (NDIS), a federally funded program that providessafe or ongoing disabilities (National Disability InsurancAgency, 2020).

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (‘Securing the NDIS for Future Generations’) Bill 2026

Submission 424: Attachment 3

The Victorian Government has conducted an unpublished review that provides important insights into the accessibility of OSHC for priority groups. Similar to QCAN, the Victorian Government found that there is an ongoing gap in provision for children with complex needs that is not being addressed by the current marketised approach to OSHC provision; that the current mix of funding programs including the NDIS, and CCS are not sufficient to address costs for parents; and that more work needs to be done to understand what quality practice looks like for children with complex support needs. Importantly, this program suggests that participation in OSHC has benefits for children with high support needs, and their parents and communities. In particular, the program gives children access to activities that they might not normally experience, and parents receive important respite as well as the capacity to achieve greater workforce participation.

Whilst specialist OSHC might seem to improve access for parents, it is unclear whether it provides the best developmental outcomes for children with complex disabilities. Cologon (n.d.) draws on a range of research literature to propose that mainstream settings provide better outcomes for children with high support needs. The benefits include improved academic, social and emotional outcomes, as well as greater community membership and participation. the question of whether, despite worthy attempts to build capacity, there will always be a need for IPs who provide hands-on support to OSHC services staffed by workers who are new to the sector and the principles of inclusion.

Later in this review, the image of OSHC is discussed in greater depth. Certainly, in order for parents of priority children to feel positive about OSHC, they need to see it as a setting that is confident in providing for their child’s requirements and has adequate resources to do so. Enabling Inclusion Professionals to work more directly with the service might leave OSHC educators and coordinators more confident because they know they have access to a central resource who will provide direct assistance as well as link to other supports.

The research reported positive results, claiming increased successful participation by children with disabilities, although the extent and nature of those improvements is unclear. On the surface, TWP seems very similar in approach and philosophy to Australia’s Inclusion Support Program.

• activities lack challenge and are better
• suited to younger children
• older children need their own spaces and resources
• 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 minority (Hurst, 2015, 2017, 2020b).

Older children’s lack of participation does not appear to be due to a diminished need for care. The ABS (2018) suggest that parents find other care options for older children such as care by neighbours, famly or older siblings. Thais raises the possibility that if OSHC was seen as more desirable by older chldren, they may be more likely to attend and thereby raise partcipation by group who these services intended. Consideraton might given how support servces cater for childen diverse age groups. Summary

This section provided detailed review available literature relating to OSHC and childern from priority groups. Whils there some literatre addressing childeren wth disablities high suppot needs, ther is litle adressing childeren fom Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, dvse cultural backgounds, econmic disadvantge or at risk abuse neglect. It also important remember families do n experience just one form disadvantage, vulnerabiltes often cumulatve (Wong et al., 2014). The current mix funding programs, lke Child Care Subsidy Inclusion Suppor Program are certainly welcome in their attempts make OSHC accessible range priority grops. The CCS attends financial barriers. ISP holistic seeks address financal barrers servicess access knowledge physical acces specialist equipment social barriersthrough education. However low levels engagement prorty gropsin ECECOSHCSuggestthere maybe othermore effective ways engagingprority familesinOSHC Factors influence familyparticpatonservicesmultiplecomplex(Baxter & Hand, 2013). Thsreview suggest need investigate provision specialst OSHCserviceschildrnwthhighsupportneeds QCAN (2019), thsexamination should include revieofundingregulatoryprograms Givenbenefits inclusion mainstream OSHCcognized Cologon,(nd)equallyimportantinvestigate howaccessmainstreammightalsoimproved Oneother significantconsideratonhowpriorityfamliesviewpurpose ofOSH If viewed purelyworkforceprogram unablemeet child’sditional needsseems unlikelymanyprotyfamilieswantaccesit.

• activities lack challenge and are better is something that will be addressed more detail later the review. This section also highlights dearth peerreviewed literature relating to OSHCand proty groups which is sometingthat requires urgent attention.

4.3 The benefits of OSHC

OSHC services complex identity On one hand, servicsprovdean institutional space hold children waiting for their primary care givers may workingor studying Simultaneously they developingas what could described business unit providesincome employment providers service whchcould communitygroups commercialentites Schoolslandlordsmay receive remunerationprovision physicalspace resources Howeverone might describe core activity anOSHCSupporchildren’development wellbeing Any changes current systemwill require innovative responses deal wht high level systemic complexity. Research into Benefits of OSHCforchildren

OSHC programs prioritize social emotional skills school connectedness, selfmanagement,self-efficacy growth mindset socal awareness It should notedwthservcesopening 6:15–9:00am & 3:00- 6:30pm (NSW servcs usually7:00–9:00amand 3:00–6:00pm), potential maximum time children can spend atthe OSHcservice maybe longer than tim spent in ‘school’ classrooms some circumstances Research from Early Childhood

Reseachfrom theEarlyChildhood sector notes that access full participation are not always available to allchildrn learningcare servicess(Australian Government Productivity Commission,2014). The chldrentmost commonly miss out those with disability or developmental delaythose fom lowsocioeconomiccircumstancesat risk abuse neglectand children frm CulturallyLinguistically Diverse CALD backgrounds Noah’s Ark,(2019). Possible benefits forchdren fom priority groups There is emerging research about participatoninhigh qualityprograms influencing soctalemotional development which mediatorofacademic achievement. Thisresearchisemerging international servicesas Australiahasnotbeenanyresarch examining lengthtimechildrenattendOSHCServices links performance classroom. OSHC programs prioritize social emotional skills selfmanagement, s \elf-efficacy socal awareness communication These sklls linkedto childrens overall wellbeing their capacity engage academicperformance future

4.4 The image of OSHC

Whilst there is only a small amount of peer-reviewed research into OSHC, particularly in comparison to other early childhood education and care settings, there are some recurring themes.

The Australian Government Productivity Commission notes that if the benefits of OSHC are to be examined then the structure, process and outcomes of the program need to be considered. This is especially relevant where learning, leisure and care linked through the Framework for School Age Care also impact life outcomes. Bae (2014) observes that empirical studies examining the education outcomes from afterschool programmes have been primarily carried out within the United States. Further, Bae (2014) states that when assessing whether or not these programs benefit children, we must consider how they’re structured, implemented, and what results occur.

‘Not core business’

A key factor influencing perceptions surrounding OSHC relates to school principals’ views on its importance. Cartmel’s (2007) PhD thesis highlights this issue; it provides an account detailing why certain schools view services differently. Approximately eighty percent of OSHC facilities operate using existing buildings such as classrooms, libraries, multi-purpose rooms, equipment and toilets located at their respective schools – meaning those responsible often act as stakeholders who can influence access. There remains a problematic perception which has persisted since the beginning years of OSHC: namely, viewing it as something marginal rather than prioritised (‘core business’) (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). Given most schools only added functions like OSHC in recent decades, this isn’t surprising. However, relegating OSHC means significant implications arise - Principals may be reluctant to share resources with them (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2014b), contributing towards staff feeling undervalued impacting wellbeing, sense of value and capacity for performance (Cartmel, 2007).

Hurst argues that when coordinators hold differing opinions from principals regarding OSHC, service legitimacy is compromised affecting quality provision. This also makes representatives less likely to advocate children’s interests.

The image presented by some portrays OSHC as peripheral—a misrepresentation according to Cartmel’s research (2007) . As its presence grows within school systems, so too does entanglement between these two entities; education reforms introduced during 2009/10 have further aligned educational goals across both sectors (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014).

A place of fun and friendship

When considering how perceptions shape experiences related to childcare services – particularly those provided through after-school programs– it becomes vital we consider what young people think about their care arrangements because they are the primary recipients involved! Children possess numerous rights under the United Nations Convention on Rights Child (UNCRC) including Article Twelve which guarantees every child has right express views concerning matters directly influencing lives - something Australia adheres via signatory status(United Nations, 1989). Research into perspectives among kids attending such facilities reveals valuable insights.

Investigating Children’s Views

The views of children aged 9 to 12 years are being investigated—an age group less likely to attend Outside School Hours Care (OSHC). In both studies, the most important features about OSHC for participants were fun activities and friends. Children desired enjoyable activities consistent with their level of development; this was relevant not just to friendships but also when those involved were similar ages. Similar results have been reported by Simoncini et al. (2015), who surveyed 164 Australian children: authors found that activities (52.4%) and play (34.1%) were ‘best’ aspects of OSHC. Friends were also important in 18.9% of cases reporting them as best thing at OSHC; girls particularly valued making new friends there – 43.9%.

A qualitative project led by Bell & Cartmel (2014) discovered Brisbane children preferred outdoor or ‘out-of-bounds’ play areas. This highlights how they see OSHC sites offering self-directed activity - a recurring feature across all cited research.

Similar findings regarding children’s view on OSHC appear within international literature: in the UK Oliver, Egharevba, and Petrie (2000) report ability to meet/make friends is valuable; Icelandic children saw primary school years primarily focused around playing where leisure time could be directed—contrasting views about structured academic learning during schooling hours (Pálsdóttir, 2010). Two Swedish studies Johansson & Ljusberg [as cited] Pálsdóttir(2010); Klerfelt & Haglund (2015), highlighted valuing spaces for fellowship with peers alongside social engagement too.

The current review considers these conflicting images central when improving access: attention needs paid towards child perspectives historically ignored concerning policy /research (Hurst , 2017; United Nations, 2005). If Australian kids desire OSHC as a play site then efforts can support this perception – perhaps encouraging them seeing it desirable and prompting attendance especially among older students who may have negative experiences of services ( Gifford, hurston., 2015; hurston., 2020b)). Government might consider supporting programs promoting fun activities—improving community perceptions overall - particularly marginalized groups within society (Rioseco et al., 2017).

A powerful actor’s views could hinder attempts shifting how communities view OSHC —particularly school principals’ attitudes Cartmel(2007), proposes that principal opinions affect schools & surrounding areas. Problematic feelings toward OSHCs negatively impact access to spaces /resources which directly impacts service quality (Cartmel , 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). The government should consider supporting engagement between those involved—encouraging provision of play and social activities as suggested by the Australian Government Productivity Commission (2014b). Consideration needs given towards shifting community perceptions recognizing multiple purposes served.

How Outside School Hours Care is Viewed Matters

Government tends view OSHC primarily care service that supports workforce participation & economic goals – conflicting with regulatory texts building on emerging research recognising its role in educational /developmental outcomes.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

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 is 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 s \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 innovation 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 ard academics to understand better how this work has been partners in the education and care of children, then, the sharing of the physical environment is more congenial an not 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

s \school management – a national curriculum

Swedish school-age educare centres (extended education/ OSHC) are part of the school, and these services share resources. The curriculum for OSHC is embedded into the national curriculum (Skolvert, 2018). This curriculum feature strengths the value placed on inclusion of all children in OSHC program. OSHC Staff (leisure-time pedagogues), require a three and-a-half years tertiary degree from a higher-level college or university (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). Educational pedagogues (pre-school teachers) make up 60% of the personnel in The barriers between OSHC and school are less dramatic. Almost all (99%) Swedish children attend high-quality leisure cres during non-school hours.

Wider economic benefits have also been proven. Research evidence shows that when children have access to quality early childhood education they can expect better school success, decreased crime rate, substance abuse, increased long term employment - positives for economy ( Nilsson et al., 2015).

If not out consideration human rights children then out consideration many economic benefits good childcare system future benefits families countries should strive reform their early childhood care systems.

Implications for priority groups

Where there very strong partnerships community school & OSHC best practice examples mutually beneficial decision making alignment values about operation OSHC diversity capabilities interests met.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

in 2006, 84% of workers were women, which is similar in proportion to the early childhood workforce (McNamara & Cassells, 2010). The age of workers is also worth discussion with 42% aged between 15–24 years. These younger workers are often studying for other careers such as teaching and are suited to the casualised nature of the jobs (Cartmel, Brannelly, Pillips & Hurst, in press) docx In 2016, 17.4% of workers were studying towards a Bachelor’s degree (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2017). There is also an interesting relationship between age and gender with higher proportions of males in the 19-24 year age group and males less likely to remain employed in OSHC after four years. The workforce is highly transient with only 26.1% having worked for four or more years in the one service (McNamara & Cassells, 2010; ACECQ A, 2019b) This again suggests a high proportion of students who move on after completing study.

A constantly changing workforce OSHC is a sector that has undergone constant change since the 1980s in its purposes with the introduction of a succession of regulatory regimes (Cartmel, 2007; Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014; Hurtst, 2017). Each of these changes has resulted in changes to the professional demands on workers, in particular an increasing administrative workload that accompanied the OSHC Quality Assurance Scheme in 2003 and the NQF in 2010 (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014) docx As participation in OSHC has increased, so too has the size of the workforce which grew 52% between 2013 and 2016 (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2017; Austalian Government Productivity Commission, 2014b). Despite the increasing size of the workforce roles in OSHC are not highly sought after. However it is noted that using permanent part-time contracts has reduced turnover along with financial and other incentives based on performance and tenure Regardless the lack of professional development opportunities particularly OSHC specific professional development opportunites can leave many educators feeling undervalued (ACECQA, 2019b) The low status of the sector discussed previously in this review also means its workers are often considered low status. OSHC is staffed by a predominantly casualised work force which reflects its short periods of operation (ACECQA, 2019b). in 2016, 68% of the workforce were employed for 19 hours or less per week and only 10.3% worked full time hours (Australion Goverment Depariment of Educaton and Traning, 2017) docx The predominance of causal rols leaves OSHC works particulary vulnerable to finacial ruptures like current COVID -19 pandemic A further snapshot of the worforce provided McNamara & Cassells (2010) ACECQ (2019b) Although there nearly ten years difference between reports discussions state peak bodies suggest much hasn’t changed last decade

4.6 OSHC Workforce

So far this review addressed number different aspects of OSHC their importance when thinking about how improve access priority groups This section considers matters relating workforce One matter already disscussed previous sections that OSHC worker perceived parents children Workorce maters such staff qualifications critical how workers OSHC regarded A constantly changing workforce OSHC sector has undergone constant change since the 1980s purposes with introduction succession regulatory regimes Cartmel, Grieshaber Hurtst Each these changes resulted in changes professional demands on workers particular increasing administrative workload accompanied by OSHC Quality Assurance Scheme 2003 NQF 2010 As participation increased so too size work force which grew 52% betwen (Australian Government Department Education Training, 2017; Austalian Goverment Productivity Commission, 2014b) docx Despite increaing size roles not highly sought after However noted using permanent part-time contracts reduced turnover along financial incentives based performance tenure Regardless lack professinal development opportunites particularly specific opportunities can leave educators feeling undervalued ACECQ The low status also means its considered low statu. OSHC staffed predominantly casualised worforce reflects short periods operationACEQA The predominance causal leaves particulary vulnerable finacial ruptures like current pandemic Further snapshot McNamara & Cassells (2010) suggests much hasn’t changed last decade

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

Necessarily be a workforce ideally suited to the needs of children from priority groups. Given the high proportion of workers who are unqualified or still studying, it is promptable that many enter the job without the skills and experience needed to support children whose needs fall outside the mainstream. Of course, these workers can acquire knowledge and expertise on the job. However, the transient nature of the workforce means that it is difficult to retain those skills longer-term. In some services, coordinators are reluctant to invest in the professional development of short-term workers (Cartmel et al., 2020).

There are also questions about whether qualified workers have the necessary skills. Whilst the Certificate and Diploma OSHC qualifications have content relating to priority groups, the low levels of participation in OSHC by priority groups mean that students may not gain relevant experience during their practical placements. It is also important to consider how well some qualifications are suited to work in OSHC. Students undertaking teaching degrees which have a developmental 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.

Summary

The section has provided a brief overview of who works in OSHC. It illustrates a diverse workforce made up predominantly of women and casual employees. While the proportion of qualified staff is increasing, many workers are unqualified or working towards a qualification. Additionally, the diverse range of qualifications in OSHC means that workers present with a complex mix of skills and theoretical biases. It is easy to see how all of these factors might lead parents to form a critical view about the capacity of some OSHC services to care for a child from a priority group whose needs might differ from the mainstream. This range of factors emerges from a complex history and cannot be addressed simply. However, how the OSHC workforce is seen by families is critical if they are to use the service. Perhaps something like the QCAN Professional Standards for OSHC Educators project (QCAN, 2018) offers one way to give workers more confidence in working with priority families and this might contribute to parents also having more confidence.

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.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The question of how to make OSHC more accessible to priority groups is complex. One thing that is evident in completing this review is that there is a range of multiple, interconnected factors that each likely play a role in whether parents and children take up the opportunity to attend OSHC. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that there exists a ‘silver bullet’ that will address this matter. The recommendations that follow need to be considered with this in mind, as interconnected and dependent upon each other.

The other factor that has also been made clear in this review 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 needed research attention to the importance of OSHC and facilitated the emergence of a growing number of researchers interested in outside school hours setting, there is still much that still needs to be learned. This is particularly the case with respect to the questions of access by priority groups. Whilst it is known that few members of priority cohorts attend OSHC, the reasons why are inferred from other related settings like early childhood, rather than clearly understood. This makes clear that there is an urgent need for further research that takes into account that all priority groups have unique complexities that make “easy” answers elusive.

The question of how to make OSHC more accessible to prents choose to send a child there, particularly for priority families who may have smaller incomes. If OSHC is only seen as care for working families, then it is reasonable to assume that working families will be the dominant users as is currently the case in Australia. Something that Government should consider is how the other benefits and functions of OSHC can be communicated to families.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Greater awareness needs to be created about the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Research needs to be conducted into the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC.

Not everybody sees OSHC in the same way. One group of stakeholders who are not always considered sufficiently are children themselves. Children are active citizens who likely play a role in determining whether they attend OSHC. This is particularly the case with older primary children who appear to see OSHC as a younger children’s space. Research shows that children value OSHC settings that provide play and shared experiences with friends. There is an opportunity for government to work in partnership with other stakeholders to promote OSHC as a site of play and friendship, particularly for older children.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Explore ways to promote OSHC as a site of play and friendship to children.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Support OSHC services to improve their approaches to working with older children.

Consideration also needs to be given to how parents of children with high support needs view OSHC. Whilst higher numbers of children with high support needs attend vacation care, very few attend OSHC. One likely reason for this is that few specialist schools provide OSHC, which is significant given that parents prefer OSHC at their child’s school. It also seems likely that many parents do not consider mainstream OSHC services suitably resourced and trained to care for children with high support needs. Whilst there are existing programs to support OSHC services with inclusive practice, this review questions whether those supports are adequate. Consideration therefore needs to be given to how OSHC provision can be improved for children with high support needs in a number of ways.

This review has also made clear the importance of the image of OSHC. As already discussed, OSHC has low status in Australian society and is often seen by those outside the sector as services that perform the seemingly simple task of keeping children safe and occupied. However, this perception understates the multiple and complex roles performed by OSHC. Certainly, OSHC provides care for working families, but this review suggests that high-quality OSHC is also an important contributor to children’s development and wellbeing, particularly for those children who spend large amounts of time there. OSHC is also a complementary educational setting that typically operates on school grounds. This however is again underappreciated with OSHC operating at arm’s length rather than in concert with other school functions. It seems logical therefore, that how OSHC is seen would play an important role in whether

RECOMMENDATION 7: Review existing inclusion supports for mainstream OSHC services to build the capacity of services to care for children with high support needs.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Explore possible benefits of providing transportation between specialist schools and mainstream OSHC.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Explore increased provision of OSHC at specialist schools.

When considering the image of OSHC, one other significant group are school principals. School principals are aware of the importance of partnerships with families and the school community. OSHC provides a conduit between families and schools and contributes significantly to children’s social and emotional learning. As discussed, most OSHC services are provided on school grounds and provide for the children who attend those same schools. Despite this, as Cartmel (2007) demonstrates, principals can regard OSHC as not core business, low status and a necessary inconvenience. Underestimating OSHC in this way can have multiple impacts on the capacity of OSHC staff to deliver high quality experiences for children and families. Principals play a critical role in operational decisions relating to spaces, staffing, resources and policies necessary for OSHC provision. If school management hold a low opinion of OSHC, this is likely reflected in the quality of service offered. For this reason, consideration needs to be given to how the image of OSHC can be raised with this important group.

RECOMMENDATION 10: Greater awareness needs to be created about the educational and developmental benefits of OSHC with school principals and management.

RECOMMENDATION 11: Explore ways of supporting school principals to recognise the benefits of positive partnerships with OSHC coordinators and providers.

The qualifications of the OSHC workforce are a significant factor in the provision of high-quality, equitable and inclusive environments for children. The research suggests that qualified staff are more likely to be able to demonstrate a high level of child development knowledge, high levels of observation skills and to work with intentionality. The workforce is more likely to manage the demands of their roles and responsibilities, particularly when working with children from priority groups.

RECOMMENDATION 12: Introduce the use of Professional Standards for OSHC educators.

RECOMMENDATION 13: Review the qualification requirements for OSHC services to ensure that the workforce has the skills and knowledge to care for children with high support needs.

OSHC has become an important context of childhood and family life for growing numbers of Australian children and families. However, as this review has demonstrated, not all children and families access the benefits that OSHC can provide.

Acknoledgements:

At the time of preparing this review, Australian OSHC services were experiencing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. the circumstances of the pandamic had postive and negative consequences on the sector . Attendance expectations and patterns changed (Baxter, 2021), which had implications for financial management and workforce. Findings from the ‘Money Matters’ report showed that the pandemic led to “the loss of a significant portion of casual employees [which in turn] has had a resounding effect on the OSHC workforce” (Network, 2020 p.9). The loss increases the likelihood that the OSHC sector has entered a cycle of hiring and retraining employees while enduring fluctuating demand – which will impact quality of care provided by service providers.. This is particularly concerning when research shows staff retention results in better outcomes for children.

The relevance of OSHC as an essential service was underlined. To date there has been limited reserach about short term impacts or long terms effects on both delivery systems and childrens lives; however unpublished findings indicate many educators felt the panademic enhanced communication between schools & ooshc organisations internationally peak organsiation reported more engagement with outdoor activities ;in Italy considered holiday programs compensate missed opportunities social emotional learning ,and US parents concerned safety development/learning their childern(Adams, 2020) Post COVID-19 needs consideration geographical socio economic landscape ensuring services available sites learn develop support families daily activites.

References

Adams, G & Todd, M. (2020). Meeting the school-age child care needs of working parents facing COVID-19 distance learning. Washington: Urban Institute.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4402.0June%202017?OpenDocument)

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about

Austrlalian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authoirty (https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/ChildrensEducationandCareNationalWorkforceStrategy_0.pdf) Australian Children’s Education and Care Authroity, https://www.acecqa.gov.au/qualifications/requirements/actively-working-towards-a-qualification
The Australian Childreens Educaiton anndd Carree Aauthhorritty(https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/ACECQAApprovedQualificationListOSHC.pdf) Australian Government Department of Eduation and Training (2017). 2016 Early Childhood Edcation and care National Workforce Census. Austrlalian Governemnt Deparmentt off Euducattion Emmploymenent & Workplacce Relatons (http://eprints.qut.edu.au/17810/QUT ePrints database) Brennan, D.,& Adamson ,E.(2014), Financing the future: An equitable and sustainable approach to early childhood education and Care Retrieved from Sydney: Baxter J.& Hand K(2013) Access too earlt childood eductaition in Austrailia Australian Institute Of Family Studies Melbourne The Australiaan Goveernmnet Departmnt Off Educatioon Skills And Empployemtn(https://www.education.gov.au/child-care-provider-handbook-0)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (“Securing the NDIS for Future Generations�) Bill 2026

Submission #424 - Attachment 3

cartmel, J., & Grieshaber, S. (2014). Communicating for quality in school age care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 23–28.

cologon, K. (n.d.). Inclusion in education: Towards equality for students with disability. Children With Disability Australia. gifford, j. (1991). What about us? Out of School Hours Care for Older School Age Children. Canberra, ACT: Act children’s Services Program Planning Committee.

gilley, T., Tayler, C., Niklas, F., & Cloney, D. (2015). Too late and not enough for some children: early childhood education and care (ecec) program usage patterns in the years before school in australia. International journal of child care and Education Policy, 9(1), 9.

Gonski Institute for Education. (2020). Fair Play: A project exploring the benefits of structured and unstructured play opportunities for equity in education. Retrieved from https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/research/fair-play-project-exploring-benefits-structured-and-unstructured-opportunities-play-rural-remote harms, t., jacobs, e. v., & white, d. r. (2013). School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale, updated edition (SACERS). New York, NY: Teachers College Press Hurst, B. (2013). Children aged nine to twelve years in Outside School Hours Care in Australia. (Master of Education thesis). University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved from [https://minerva-access-unimelb-edu-au.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/38136 MINERVA Access database.]

Hurst, B. (2015). Not always fun: Older children’s play worlds in Australian outside school hours care. Journal of Playwork Practice, 2(1), 7–22. karlsudd, p. (2012). School age care: An ideological contradiction. Problems of education in the 21st century, 48, 45–51. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxCdirect=true&db=ehh&AN=84469727&scope=site

klerfelt, a., & haglund, b. (2015). Walk-and-talk conversations: A way to elicit children’s perspectives and prominent discourses in school-age educare. International journal of research in extended Education, 2(2), 119–134. doi:10.3224/ijree.v2i2.19550 KU Children’s Services. (2020). KU Children’s services. Retrieved from www.ku.com.au.

KU NSW/ACT Inclusion Agency. (2020) Strategic inclusion Plan (SIP) Barriers, Strategies and Actions - Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.idfm.org.au/WWW_IDFM/media/Media/SIP-Barriers-Strategies-and-Actions-Fact-Sheet-(1)_1.pdf lester, s., & russell, w. (2014). Children’s right to play. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The sage handbook of Play and learning in early childhood (pp. 294–305.). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. lundback, b., & falth, l. (2019). Leisure Time Activities Including children with special needs: A research overview. International journal for Research on extended education, 7(1), 20–39. mcNamara, j., & cassells, r. (2010). Who cares for school age kids: Staffing trends in outside School Hours Care. Retrieved from http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/publications/?publication=who-cares-for-school-age-kids-staffing-trends-in-outside-school-hours-care Milton, a c., Stewart, e., Ospina-Pinillos, l., Davenport, t., & Hickie, iB.(2021) Participatory Design of an activities based collective mentoring program in after-School care settings : Connect promote and protect Program JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting , 4(2,)e22822 doi: 10.2196/22822 Retrieved From http://hdl.handle.net/11343/190706 national disability insurance agency. (2020). National Disability Insurance Scheme Operational Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/operational-guidelines. network of community Activities . (2000). Out Of School hours care: A case for regulation Retreived from www.netossh.org.au/pages/regease2.html network of Community Activities .(2020). MoneyMatters viability of out of school Hours Care sector during the coronavirus pandemic And beyond Sydney Network of Community Activites kane, E. (2015). Playing practices In school age childcare:: An action research project in Sweden & England PhD. Stockholm University, stockholm university. jinnah-ghelani h& stoneman z.(2009) Elements of successful inclusion For school Age children with disabilities in child care settings Childcare practice ,15(3), 175–191https://doi.org/10.1080/13575270902891024 mullan k(2013) Schools’s out - afterschool’s in Children’s AfterSchoolCare arrangements and activities Australian Institute Family Studies Annual Statistical Report Canberra Commonwealth Australia

NSW Government (Producer) - Out of School Hours Care Tenders

The following is a list of references cited within this document:

• Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B. and Alnervik, K. (2015). Why Swedish early learning is so much better than Australia’s. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/why-swedish-early-learning-is-so-much-better-than-australias-35033
• Noah’s Arc Inc (2019). Response to proposed changes to Inclusion Support Program (ISP) Guidelines, Malvern, Victoria: Noah’s Arc Inc.
• Oliver, C., Egharevba, I., & Petrie, P. (2000). Out-of-school lives London: Stationery Office. Pálsdóttir, K. (2010). After-school centres for 6–9 year olds in Reykjavic, Iceland. Barn(4), 9–28.
• Queensland Children’s Activities Network (QCAN). (2019). Position paper for the provision of specialist OSHC services in Queensland. Retrieved from qcan.org.au
• Queensland Children’s Activities Network (QCAN). (n.d.). Outside School Hours Care professional standards 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.

The following are also listed:

• United Nations. (2005). Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood (CRC/C/GC/7). In: United Nations Geneva.
• United Nations. (2013). Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 17. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood (CRC/C/ GC/17). In: United Nations Geneva. Westoby, P., Cox, L., Cartmel, J., Roland, B., Treasure, L., Blane, A., & Morgan.. (2021). Towards a ‘third space’ community practice school-aged care: A learning community and “the new neighburhood”. Childhood, 28(2), 309–324. doi:10.1177/097568221996428 Winefield, H., Piteo, A., Kettler, L., Roberts, R., Taylor, A., Tukey, M… Lamb, I. (2011). Australian parents’ needs and expectations regarding out of school hours care: A pilot study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(3), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X10389142. Wong, S., Harrison, L., Whiteford, C., & Rivalland, C.(2014) Utilisation of early childhood education and care services in a nationally representative sample of Australian children: A focus on disadvantage. Australasian journal of early childhood, 39(2), 60-69.

Appendices

These are resources that can support the partnership between OSHC services and schools.

AAPPENDIX 1.

Excerpts from School Age Care Environmental Rating 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.

A School-age child care program can arrange for exclusive use of a number of shared facilities on a regular basis (Ex: weekly access to school computer centre or library; access to community pool in recreation centre.) A School-age care program has its own classroom. The Program has individual conference and adult group meeting space that is conveniently located, comfortable and separate from space used for children.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS For Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

| Item No. | Item/Subscales | Inadequate | Minimal | Good | Excellent | | | 35 | Communication between program staff and children’s classroom teachers | No communication between school-age child care staff and children’s classroom teachers about children and/or program. | Some communication between school-age child care staff and children’s classroom teachers about practical concerns (Ex: reporting absence, exposure to contagious illness). Some communication about problems children are having in the school or after-school setting. | School-age child care staff and classroom teachers communicate monthly about academic issues (Ex: special projects, subject matter being studied, problems with homework). School-age child care staff and classroom teachers communicate monthly about children’s social/emotional issues (Ex: classroom behaviour, home situations). | Staff-age child care staff and classroom teachers communicate bi-weekly about general academic and social issues affecting the children. Joint planning done for individual children, as needed.

| 42 | Inclusion Provisions for exceptional children | No modifications made to the physical environment, program, and/or schedule for exceptional children. No attempt to assess child’s needs or to find out about available assessments. | Minor modifications made to the physical environment, program, and/or schedule to permit child to attend (Ex: exceptional child allowed to play alone if not able to join group activities.). Some attempt to find out about child’s needs or to find out about available assessments. | Staff have information from available assessment or request assessment of child’s needs. Staff use assessment information about needs of exceptional children and make modification in environment, program, and schedule so that children can participate in many activities. | Consultation with professional special educators regularly available to assist in planning individual programs for exceptional children. Centre staff follow through with activities and interactions recommended by professional special educators to help children meet identified goals.

| 43 | Individualisation (Ex: same activities, procedures, schedule, environment, and consequences for all children) | Little or no individualisation provided (Ex: separate toileting scheduled for children needing special help). Staff make minor modifications so that children can be included in some activities. Children often fail tasks or cannot participate in ongoing activities. | Much individualization provided in play activities and routines. Children participate successfully in tasks and activities that appropriately challenge their abilities. One-to-one and small-group activities are provided in addition to regular program for exceptional children.| Objectives for children with special needs are incorporated into free play and planned activities. Staff use interaction with children, room arrangement, materials, and schedules to meet individual needs (Ex: raised picture labels on toy shelves for visually impaired child; staff sign so hearing-impaired child can participate fully.) Independence encouraged through environmental modifications, appropriate activities, and teaching strategies. |

| 44 | Multiple opportunities for learning and practicing skills | Staff do not provide repeated opportunities for learning and practicing skills identified as goals for the child. | Staff providesome opportunities for learning new skill New Skills usually practiced in Special Activities Child does alone. | Repeated Opportunities For Learning And Practicing Skill Provided . Some instances of skill practice during naturally occurring Routines and events. | Frequent Use Of Naturally Occurring Routine To Reinforce Learning Objective Frequently Used Natural Events reinforce learning objectives.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (‘Securing the NDIS for Future Generations’) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

| Item No. | Subscales | Inadequate | |–––––|——————|———————————|——————————| | 45 | Engagement | Little appropriate involvement (Ex: much time spent waiting for other children or staff; child with special needs wandering around) | Some appropriate involvement during staff-directed activities (Ex: children pay attention during small-group work). Some appropriate involvement during routines and play times.| Children are appropriately involved most of the time during staff-directed activities, routines, and play times. Staff frequently interact with children and provide attractive, developmentally appropriate materials to maintain active involvement (Ex: staff guide wandering child to an attractive play area; help non-mobile child change activity when ready). | Transitions between activities, routine care, and play times are arranged so that children maintain involvement (Ex: children continue to play until next activity is ready). Many alternative activities available for children to use independently or in small groups (Ex: child who loses interest in story is allowed to build with Lego).

| 46 | Interacting with peers | No attempt made by staff to promote peer interactions. No peer interaction occurs. | Occasional efforts to promote peer interactions, mostly in special activities not related to ongoing events (Ex: asking for and passing things done in a special small group, but not during lunch). Some effort to promote peer interaction in ongoing events. | Many efforts to promote peer interactions at planned group times (Ex: child given chance to answer question at story time, to help someone else set the table). Some peer interaction encouraged during free choice activities. | Many efforts to promote peer interactions during free choice activities. Frequent efforts to include child with special needs in appropriate peer interactions throughout the day.

| 47 | Promoting communication | Staff do not encourage children’s communication (Ex: do not ask questions, ignore children’s attempts to communicate) Communication to children is primarily directive.Staff do not provide communication options required by child with special needs (Ex: do not face hearing-impaired child when talking; do not provide communication board or use signing to child unable to speak). | Staff provide some communication opportunities during structured activities using alternative communication options when necessary (Ex: communication board used during snack time). Staff occasionally encourage children’s communication outside of structured activities.| Staff adjust speech to children’s level of understanding.Communication with children includes much social conversation and information sharing. Staff ask developmentally appropriate questions and attend to children’s answers. Alternative communication options are used throughout the day. | Staff frequently promote children’s communication (Ex: give verbal descriptions of ongoing activities expand on children’s talk prompt or model communication reinforce children’s attempts to communicate.) Staff use routines and activities throughout the day to reach appropriate communication goals for the children. Staff involve other children in communication with a child who has special needs. |

APPENDIX 2

Theorise

• What are the theories that help us here? From where can these be drawn?
• Can we draw ways of understanding from philosophy or cultural understandings?
• What are the values being exemplified here?

Think Otherwise

• How else could we think? What has been revealed?
• What could we prioritise that we hadn’t before in relation to making OSHC more accessible, more inclusive?
• Where are we now – what new insight do we have?
• What do we know now that will help us think and see differently?
• What will we do differently?

Closing Draw the ideas to a close and thank everyone for their participation.

A conversation about inclusive approaches

Tell the participants that you are going to have a conversation about taking an inclusive practice and inclusive approaches that underpin children access to before and after school care services. The focus on children’s is 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 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 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 annd 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 aud 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 egulatory framework that provides uniform standards for all Australian childcare services including School Age Care.

National Quality Standard (NQS): Minimum opoperating 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 aassessment 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.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 4247 - Attachment 5

00233E

CRICOS No.