If so, you are clearly not the only ones to think that way.

Pauline Hanson stamped with big boots into the recent furore arising from Leyonjelm’s comments arguing that she brought up her kids without needing any special qualification, so why should early childhood educators need a qualification?

Both blame the increasing cost of child care on the national quality framework and legislation that mandates improved qualifications, improved educator:child ratios, and improvements in quality all around.

Let’s look at what the evidence tells us about early childhood education.

First is the international research demonstrating that children who attend good quality early childhood programs are more likely to do well at school, and that success breeds further success.

We have evidence to show that children who have attended good quality early childhood programs are more likely in adulthood to be employed, to earn higher wages, to be healthier, to be less likely to break the law, and (using epigenetic arguments) they are more likely to pass these successful lifestyles on to their children.

We know that the experiences children have in the early years shape the way the brain “wires up” and this shapes the way we think and learn throughout our lives. Good quality learning experiences in the early years lay the foundations for rational, critical thinking in adulthood.

If you are a hard-nosed economist you might be interested to learn that the return on investment in good quality early childhood education is calculated to be 1:17 – for every $1 invested the return in the future when today’s children are adults is likely to be $17 (calculated from evidence demonstrating reduced social welfare, health, justice and education spending and increased revenue to the state through personal tax).

Children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds make large gains in their performance so that good quality early childhood education is often positioned as a key element in closing the gap between the achievement levels of those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged.

Children who are advantaged also show improvements in their achievements but not such large improvements as shown by children who are disadvantaged.

Social disadvantage not only costs our nation, it is also morally and ethically unacceptable so that investment in any options that function to reduce inequality is, to me, absolutely essential.

Being in groups of children, having opportunities to engage with peers and with activities and equipment that are often not available in homes creates opportunities for learning that even the most dedicated parents cannot easily replicate.

Learning to negotiate, to share, to make and to keep friends, to control emotions in socially acceptable ways, to delay gratification and to develop empathy are all skills that are essential for success in life.

There is research to suggest that these skills are even more important than the ability to read and write in shaping a child’s future outcomes.

Surely for outcomes as important as these we should be all advocating for more good quality early childhood services.

In a perfect world, early childhood education should be offered by the state at the same kinds of costs for parents as is primary and secondary schooling.

Access should not be dependent on parental income (we can hardly work on closing the gap if those families who are most disadvantaged cannot afford to send their children).

That any politician, in today’s world, should demonstrate such an abysmal level of ignorance is a sad testament to the calibre of leadership we have in this country.

Perhaps Leyonhjelm and Hanson were not given the advantage of a good quality early childhood program in the years before they began school? 

Margaret Sims is a Professor of Early Childhood at the University of New England.