Have Your Say: A Guide to Making a Submission on the ECE Funding Review

22 July 2026

Download as a PDF

The Ministerial Advisory Group’s (MAG) review of Early Childhood Education funding closes on 6 August. The decisions made through this review could shape the future of the sector for many years to come.

The consultation explores seven key areas of possible change, from how funding should support children and whānau, to teacher funding, workforce sustainability, reporting requirements and whether the funding system could be simplified.

The proposed changes focus largely on redistributing existing funding rather than increasing the overall investment in early childhood education. While redistribution may better align funding with government priorities, it does not address the financial pressures many services continue to face. Without additional investment, there is a risk that improving one part of the system will come at the expense of another, making it harder to sustain quality, support the workforce, and meet the needs of tamariki and whānau.

At its heart, the review asks one important question:

What should the Government prioritise when it invests in early childhood education?

You don’t need to be a policy expert to make a submission. In fact, one of the most valuable things you can offer is your own experience. Whether you’re a kaiako, leader, home-based educator or service provider, your day-to-day work gives you insights that no one else can provide.

You may support some of the proposals, prefer the current system, or have completely different ideas. Whatever your perspective, this is your opportunity to tell the MAG what is working well, what isn’t, and what changes would make the biggest difference for tamariki, whānau and the people who work in the sector.

Tips for making a submission

✓ You don’t need to answer every question; you could just pick one question if you choose!
✓ You can also choose the status quo.
✓ Write from your own experience.
✓ Real examples from your service are powerful.
✓ Be respectful and constructive.
✓ Focus on the areas that matter most to you.
✓ There are no right or wrong answers.
✓ There are more tips at the end of this article.

If you don’t want to make a submission, you can complete the MAG survey here.

The survey follows the same structure as the Consultation Document. You can choose which sections to give feedback on, and within those sections whether you agree or oppose to each point – you also get the option of adding further comments to explain your choice and can suggest both amendments to the options presented and suggest other changes.

Most importantly, whether you create a submission or complete the survey, tell the MAG what you see every day working with tamariki and whānau and help them understand the impact of these proposed changes. Your insights and experience are invaluable.

Every voice matters

Te Rito Maioha will be making an organisational submission, but one submission cannot represent the experiences of thousands of kaiako working across Aotearoa. Individual submissions help decision-makers understand how funding settings affect different services, communities and children. They provide real-life experiences that no consultation document can capture.

Your perspective is unique, and your voice can help shape the future of early childhood education in New Zealand.

Submissions close on 6 August. We encourage every member to have their say.

The seven areas of potential change

1. Targeted funding

The review asks whether additional funding should be directed towards tamariki, whānau or communities with greater needs, or towards government priorities. Targeted funding aims to direct additional support to tamariki, whānau or communities with greater needs. While this may improve equity, it could also mean less funding is available elsewhere if the overall funding pool remains unchanged.

Consider:

• Does your community need additional support?

• Would targeted funding improve outcomes for tamariki?

• Could it create challenges for services that receive less funding?

• How can funding be both fair and sustainable?

• How should Government decide who receives additional support?

2. Helping whānau with fees

The MAG is considering changes to how it helps whānau meet the cost of early childhood education, including whether fee assistance could be better targeted or simplified.

Potential benefits

• Improved affordability. More whānau may be able to access ECE if cost is less of a barrier.

• Greater participation. Lower costs may encourage more tamariki to attend ECE regularly.

• Support for workforce participation. Affordable ECE can make it easier for parents and caregivers to enter or remain in paid employment.

• More equitable access. Additional assistance could help whānau who might otherwise struggle to afford ECE.

• Simpler support. A less complex system could make it easier for whānau to understand and access available assistance.

Potential considerations

• Who receives assistance? If support is more targeted, some whānau may receive more help while others may receive less or no assistance which could increase the cost for many whānau and create demand for ECE within lower socio-economic and wealthier suburbs squeezing middle New Zealand.

• Pressure on providers. If fee assistance changes without corresponding increases in funding to services, providers may face pressure to absorb costs or increase fees or close.

• Limited funding. As the review is fiscally neutral, increasing assistance in one area may require reducing funding elsewhere.

• Administrative complexity. Eligibility criteria and verification processes can create additional work for both whānau and services.

• Balancing affordability and quality. If funding is redirected primarily towards reducing fees, there may be less available to support quality initiatives such as qualified teachers or professional development shifting ECE from quality education and care to custodial care.

Consider

• Are fees preventing some children from attending ECE?

• Does the current assistance reach the whānau who need it most?

• How could the system be made easier for whānau to access?

• How can Government improve affordability while continuing to support high-quality education?

• What impact do fees have on the tamariki and whānau you work with?

• Is this concept only viable if overall funding increases?

3. Universal ECE funding

The review asks whether the funding provided for all tamariki should change, including the number of funded hours and support for home-based education.

Consider

• Does the current funding model meet the needs of tamariki and whānau?

• How important is flexibility?

• What impact would changes have on participation and learning?

4. Teacher qualification funding

The MAG proposes simplifying the funding bands linked to teacher qualifications and reviewing how funding supports the ECE workforce.

Potential benefits

• A simpler funding system. Fewer funding bands may make the system easier to understand and administer.

• Reduced administration. Services may spend less time managing qualification-related funding requirements.

• Greater flexibility. Government may be able to redesign funding to better align with future workforce needs and priorities.

Potential considerations

• Incentives for qualifications. Simplifying funding bands could reduce the financial incentive for services to employ higher proportions of qualified teachers.

• Quality of education. Qualified teachers play a significant role in children’s learning, development and wellbeing. We believe any move that reduces the percentage of qualified teachers is a significant and backward step.

• Workforce attraction and retention. Funding settings can influence recruitment, retention and professional development within the sector potentially decreasing the number of qualified teachers within ECE.

• Investment in professional learning. Changes may affect how services support kaiako to gain or maintain qualifications.

• Long-term sector capability. Funding decisions made today may influence the size, experience and capability of the future ECE workforce.

Consider

• How important are qualified teachers in your service?

• Does the current funding model encourage quality teaching?

• Could simplifying funding improve the system without reducing quality?

• What workforce challenges do you see in your community?

• How should Government balance simplicity, affordability and quality?

5. Funding the workforce

The MAG is reviewing how funding supports the early childhood workforce, including whether the current approach provides the right incentives and adequately reflects the costs of delivering quality early childhood education.

Potential benefits

• A more sustainable funding model. Changes could better reflect the real costs of employing and supporting the ECE workforce.

• Improved recruitment and retention. Funding settings may help attract and retain skilled kaiako and leaders.

• Greater flexibility. A revised funding model could allow services to respond more effectively to changing workforce needs.

• Better alignment with government priorities. Funding could be designed to support workforce capability and long-term sustainability.

• A simpler system. Streamlining workforce funding may reduce complexity for providers.

Potential considerations

• Workforce shortages. Changes to funding could influence the sector’s ability to recruit and retain qualified teachers, particularly in areas already experiencing shortages.

• Financial pressure on services. If funding does not keep pace with employment costs, services may need to absorb increased costs, reduce spending elsewhere, or pass costs on to whānau through higher fees.

• Supporting quality. Workforce funding plays a role in maintaining teacher capability, leadership, mentoring and professional learning.

• Differences across the sector. Workforce challenges vary between urban and rural communities, different service types, and regions, so a single funding approach may not suit everyone.

• Long-term sustainability. Funding decisions may affect the attractiveness of teaching as a career and the sector’s ability to meet future demand.

Consider

• What are the biggest workforce challenges facing your service or community?

• Does current funding adequately support the recruitment and retention of teachers?

• What helps build and maintain a high-quality workforce?

• Are there barriers that make it difficult to attract or keep experienced teachers?

• How could Government better support the people who deliver early childhood education?

The consultation separates teacher qualification funding (Section 4) from workforce funding (Section 5), but they are closely connected. Qualification funding influences the incentives for employing qualified teachers, while workforce funding looks more broadly at how government funding supports the people who work in the sector. When writing your submission, it’s worth considering how these two areas work together to support both quality education and a sustainable workforce.

6. Information and reporting

The MAG is considering whether services should provide more information about how public funding is used and the outcomes it achieves. It is also looking at whether current reporting requirements are fit for purpose and whether additional information could support better policy and funding decisions. Services providers note that every hour spent on administration is an hour that cannot be spent teaching, planning, mentoring staff or engaging with whānau. This part of the review asks whether the right balance has been struck between accountability and unnecessary compliance.

That helps members immediately understand why a seemingly technical issue could affect their day-to-day work.

Potential benefits

• Greater transparency. Better information can help Government and the public understand how funding is being used.

• Better-informed decisions. Reliable data can help identify where funding is having the greatest impact and where additional support may be needed.

• Improved accountability. Reporting can provide assurance that public funding is being used as intended.

• Better planning. Collecting the right information may help Government respond more effectively to changes in demand, workforce pressures and community needs.

• Reduced duplication. If reporting systems are modernised, services may be able to provide information more efficiently.

Potential considerations

• Administrative burden. Additional reporting requirements may increase the time services spend on administration rather than teaching and supporting tamariki.

• Compliance costs. New reporting systems may require additional staff time, training or changes to existing processes.

• Collecting meaningful information. Not everything that matters in early childhood education is easy to measure. There is a risk that reporting focuses on what is easy to count rather than what is most important for children’s learning and wellbeing.

• Privacy and data use. Services and whānau may have concerns about how information is collected, stored and used.

• Balancing accountability and trust. While Government needs confidence that funding is being used appropriately, reporting requirements should be proportionate and support, rather than hinder, quality teaching.

Consider

• Is the current reporting burden reasonable?

• What information would genuinely help improve the ECE system?

• Are there reporting requirements that could be simplified or removed?

• How can Government collect useful information without creating unnecessary administration?

• How can accountability be balanced with time spent supporting tamariki and whānau?

7. Simplifying the funding system

The MAG wants to know whether the funding system could be easier to understand. Many people told the MAG that the current system has become complicated over time, with different funding rules and administrative requirements. The review asks whether there is a simpler way to fund ECE services while still meeting the needs of tamariki, whānau and providers.

Relevant questions are whether and how the funding system could be made simpler and easier to understand while still supporting quality early childhood education.

For example, could there be fewer funding categories? Could the funding rules be easier to understand? Could services spend less time working out what funding they are entitled to and more time focusing on tamariki? How can funding still encourage quality provision of ECE?

This is complex because the current funding system has evolved over many years as new initiatives and priorities have been added. Simplifying it could reduce complexity and make it easier for services to operate. However, many of the existing funding settings were introduced to recognise differences in quality, workforce qualifications, service types or community needs. One of the key questions in this review is whether the system can be simplified without losing the features that support quality, equity and positive outcomes for tamariki.

Potential benefits

• Less paperwork. A simpler funding system could reduce administration and free up more time for teaching and leadership.

• Easier to understand. Services may find it easier to understand how their funding is calculated and plan for the future.

• More consistent. A simpler system may make funding decisions more predictable and transparent.

• Quicker to manage. Less time spent interpreting funding rules could mean more time supporting tamariki and whānau.

Potential considerations

• Some funding incentives could disappear. The current funding system rewards some things, such as employing higher numbers of qualified teachers. Simplifying the system could mean some of these incentives are reduced or removed reducing the provision of quality ECE and focusing on affordability.

• Some services may be better off than others. A simpler funding model may not reflect the different costs faced by kindergartens, education and care centres, home-based services or rural providers.

• Change creates uncertainty. Services may need time to understand new rules and adjust budgets if funding arrangements change.

• Simple isn’t always fair. A funding model that’s easy to administer may not recognise that some communities, children or service types need more support than others.

Consider

• Is the current funding system easy to understand?

• Are there funding rules that create unnecessary paperwork?

• What parts of the current system work well and should be kept?

• Could the funding system be made simpler without affecting quality?

• If you could change one thing about the funding system, what would it be?

Real-life examples

• A service manager spends hours working out which funding band applies because of different qualification thresholds. Could this process be simpler?

• A teacher spends more time completing funding-related administration than supporting curriculum planning. Could reporting requirements be reduced?

• A home-based educator wonders whether a simpler funding model would still recognise the unique way home-based education operates.

• A rural service worries that a single funding model might not reflect the higher costs of operating in smaller communities.

The challenge for the Government is finding the right balance: making the funding system easier to use without removing the features that support quality education and recognise the different needs of services and communities.

Tips for writing a strong submission:

Write from experience
Your daily work with tamariki gives you valuable insight.

Use examples
Real examples are often more powerful than general statements.

Be constructive
Explain both the issue and what you think would improve it.

Focus on what matters most
You don’t have to comment on every proposal. It’s perfectly acceptable to focus on the areas that affect you most.

A Simple Submission Structure

Introduction

Briefly introduce yourself and your role.

“I am an early childhood teacher with 12 years’ experience working in a community-based service.”

What works well

Describe what should be protected.

What concerns you

Explain any challenges or risks you see.

Recommendations

Suggest what Government should consider.

Conclusion

Summarise your key message.

These decisions will influence the future of early childhood education for years to come, which is why it’s important that kaiako share their experiences before submissions close on 6 August.

Media Contact

Rob McCann - Lead Communications Advisor | Kaitohutohu Whakapā Matua
022 411 4560
rob.mccann@ecnz.ac.nz