Technological University Dublin Technological University Dublin

ARROW@TU Dublin ARROW@TU Dublin

Reports Centre for Social and Educational Research

2004-01-01

Making Connections: a Review of International Policies, Practices Making Connections: a Review of International Policies, Practices

and Research Relating to Quality in Early Childhood Care and and Research Relating to Quality in Early Childhood Care and

Education Education

Noirin Hayes Technological University Dublin, noirin.hayes@tudublin.ie

D. McGrath Technological University Dublin

Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cserrep

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the Other Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Hayes, N., McGrath, D.: Making connections:a review of international policies, practices and research relating to quality in early childhood care and education. Report commissioned by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE), 2004.

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Centre for Social and Educational Research at ARROW@TU Dublin. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of ARROW@TU Dublin. For more information, please contact arrow.admin@tudublin.ie, aisling.coyne@tudublin.ie.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License Funder: Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, Ireland

Funded by the Irish Government and part financed by the European Union under the National Development Plan2000-2006

MakingConnections

A Review of International Policies,Practices and Research Relating toQuality in Early Childhood Care andEducation

Published by the Centre for Early Childhood

Development & Education,

The Gate Lodge,

St. Patrick's College,

Drumcondra,

Dublin 9.

Tel: 353 1 8842110

Fax: 353 1 8842111

Email: early.childhood@spd.dcu.ie

Website: www.cecde.ie

ISBN: 0954581563

© 2004 The Centre for Early Childhood Development

& Education.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise without the

prior permission of the publisher.

Edited by Heino Schonfeld, Dr. Gemma Kiernan and

Thomas Walsh.

The CECDE would like to gratefully acknowledge the

work of the Centre for Social and Educational

Research (CSER), Dublin Institute of Technology, in

completing the research for this review. Particular

thanks are due to Deirdre McGrath and Dr. Nóirín

Hayes at the CSER for their work in this

regard.

Printed by Print Bureau.

I

The OECD Thematic Review of EarlyChildhood Education and Care Policy inIreland encouraged the major stakeholdersin Ireland to improve quality in earlychildhood settings, and proposed a numberof policy initiatives. Among these wereproposals to strengthen research and toopen dialogue with other countries whichhave faced similar challenges in raisingquality in their early childhood systems.With the launching of a successfulinternational conference in September2004 and now through the publication ofthis outstanding report on quality, theCECDE has responded to this challenge.This is a comprehensive and well-researched text, which will be extremelyuseful for policy makers and the majorstakeholders in children's services inIreland.

From the experience of the country reviewsundertaken by the OECD, it is clear that inmany countries practical reasons underliethe attention given to early childhoodeducation and care. Children's services playan important role in contemporaryeconomies in supporting young childrenand families. They contribute greatly to thewell-being, development and learning ofyoung children, and support young parentsin their fundamental role of rearing andeducating their children. Affordableservices help to reconcile family and workresponsibilities and contribute to equalopportunities for women. When goodquality services are present, more womenreturn to employment, helping to sustaineconomic growth and pension systems inthe future.

Quality services help also to tackle childand family poverty and, in the case ofIreland, could provide - particularly on anextended-day basis - security and well-being to a substantial number of youngchildren. A well-run service in everyneighbourhood also contributes to the earlyidentification of children with speciallearning needs, and to including them inmainstream education. If barriers to socialparticipation are removed at the beginningof life, a powerful signal about a society'scommitment to basic human rights is sentout.

The CECDE review of quality is particularlytimely. A focus on quality in children'sservices demarcates a child-centredapproach from a strictly labour-marketreflex that seeks only to provide places. Thequality of what is offered to children mustbe a priority in services. Although as thisreview outlines, such quality can bedescribed and measured in many ways -through structural, process, cultural oroutcome variables - the well-being, identityformation and learning of young childrenshould remain at its centre. This focuscorresponds well to the growing awarenessin Irish society of the fundamentalinterests, needs and rights of youngchildren.

The policy implications for quality in Irishservices are skilfully drawn from thiscomparative review of six countries. TheCECDE authors call for: a coherent, co-ordinated policy framework; a broaddefinition of quality to incorporate differentperspectives; a support system that isadvisory and empowering; the consultationand engagement of all stakeholders;parental involvement; adequate qualitysupports, such as a curriculum framework;high levels of training; and particularattention to children with special oradditional learning needs.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledgethis contribution, made by Heino Schonfeldand his team, to the policy and qualitydebate in Ireland. Other important nationalreports and analyses have also examinedthe issue from a more domestic perspectiveand have reached similar conclusions. Thetime now seems ripe to test aspirations inaction. I wish all stakeholders courage,wisdom and the spirit of compromise inthis task. Efforts over the next years will laythe values and structural foundations of anearly childhood system in Ireland that isworthy of a progressive, democratic society.

John Bennett, M.Ed. Ph.D.OECD Education and Training Division

Foreword

II

Table of ContentsAcronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V

Chapter 1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.2 International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.3 National Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.4 National Practice Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.5 National Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.6 Context of the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.7 Rationale for Choice of Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.8 Aspects of Quality Included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91.9 Overview of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Chapter 2 - Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162.2 Quality in Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192.4 Stakeholders and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272.5 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .312.6 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332.7 Critique of the ‘Discourse of Quality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .372.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Chapter 3 - Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .403.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .403.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .403.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .473.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Chapter 4 - Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .504.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .504.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .534.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .564.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Chapter 5 - Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .605.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .615.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .615.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

III

5.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .655.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .665.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Chapter 6 - Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .726.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .746.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .746.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .756.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .786.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Chapter 7 - New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .817.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .817.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .827.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .837.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .857.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .847.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .957.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

Chapter 8 - Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1008.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1008.2 Context for Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1008.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1018.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1028.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1058.6 Educational Disadvantage and Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1058.7 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

Chapter 9 - Overview and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1089.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1089.2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1089.3 Defining Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1099.4 Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1099.5 Supporting Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1099.6 Implications for Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1109.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

IV

ADM Area Development Management

BCCN Border Counties ChildcareNetwork

CECDE Centre for Early ChildhoodDevelopment and Education

CIS Caregiver Interaction Scale

CRRU Childcare Resource andResearch Unit

CRSS Centros Regionais de SegurançaSocial (Regional Social SecurityCentres)

DENI Department of EducationNorthern Ireland

DES Department of Education andScience

DfES Department for Education andSkills

DHC Department of Health andChildren

DHSS Department of Health andSocial Services

DIT Dublin Institute of Technology

DJELR Department of Justice, Equalityand Law Reform

DOPs Desirable Objectives andPractices

DRE Direcções Regionais deEducação (Regional Office ofEducation)

ECCE Early Childhood Care andEducation

ECD Early Childhood Development

ECCD Early Childhood Care andDevelopment

ECE Early Childhood Education

ECERS Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale

ECERS-E Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale - Extension

ECERS-R Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale - Revised

ECP Early Childhood Programmes

ECS Early Childhood Services

EEL Effective Early Learning

EOCP Equal Opportunities ChildcareProgramme

EPPE Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project

ERO Educational Review Office

FDCRS Family Day Care Rating Scale

HMSO Her Majesty's Stationery Office

ICCE International Child Care andEducation

IDP Individual Development Plan

IEA International Association forthe Evaluation of EducationalAchievement

IEP Individual Educational Plan

IPSS Union of Private and SocialSolidarity Institutions

ITERS Infant/Toddler EnvironmentRating Scale

NAEYC National Association for theEducation of Young Children

NCNA National Children's NurseriesAssociation

N.D. No Date

NDP/CSF National Development Plan/Community SupportFramework

NFQ National Framework for Quality

NICHD National Institute of ChildHealth and HumanDevelopment

NICMA Northern Ireland ChildmindingAssociation

NVQ National VocationalQualification

NZCER New Zealand Council forEducational Research

OECD Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development

PFH Pestalozzi-Fröbel-Haus

PIECCs Pacific Islands Early ChildhoodCentres

QE Quality in Education Mark

STAR Student-Teacher AchievementRatio

T and EA Training and EmploymentAgency

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational,Scientific and CulturalOrganisation

USA United States of America

V

Acronyms

Introduction

1.1 IntroductionThis report is a cross-national review ofpolicy, practice and research pertaining toquality in early childhood care andeducation (ECCE), focusing on sixcountries. In the last few years, muchattention has been focused internationallyon the issue of quality in ECCE. Quality hasalso come to the fore of policy and practicein the ECCE sector in Ireland as evidencedby the establishment of the Centre for EarlyChildhood Development and Education(CECDE). With this in mind, it is timelythat attention be focused on the issue ofquality in Ireland and this report can beviewed as one product of the currentinterest in the issue of quality.

This chapter introduces the report. Theinternational context and the increasingattention given to the issue of quality inECCE is first noted. The national contextwithin which this review takes place is thenexamined in some detail. This includeslooking at the growing interest andreference to quality in policy documentsover the last decade, the variety ofinitiatives that have emerged to raisepractitioner standards and the limitedresearch that has been conducted aroundthe issue of quality in Ireland. The contextof the review is outlined as is the value ofconducting cross-national research. Therationale for the choice of countriesincluded in this review is discussed. Finally,the outline of the remainder of the report isdiscussed at the end of this chapter.

1.2 International Context

Attention given to the subject of quality hasincreased noticeably since the 1980s(Dahlberg et al., 1999). Williams (1994)suggests that almost every publication onearly childhood institutions contains the

1

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

2

word quality in its title. The Organisationfor Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) report StartingStrong acknowledges that in terms of theECCE sector, "Quality is high on theagenda…"(OECD, 2001:135). One of thecurrent cross-national policy trendsidentifiable in ECCE concerns raising thequality of provision.

The OECD report suggests that:

In part, policy interest has beenmotivated by research showing theimportance of quality earlyexperiences to children's short-term-cognitive, social, and emotionaldevelopments as well as to their longterm success in school and later life.(OECD, 2001:13)

A significant body of empirical research hasillustrated a link between quality in ECCEservices and positive outcomes for children(Mooney and Munton, 1997). Two largelongitudinal studies, the Effective Provisionof Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project inEngland and the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (NICHD)Study of Early Child Care in the UnitedStates of America (USA) have both reporteda significant relationship between thequality of ECCE and developmentaloutcomes (Mooney et al., 2003). Goodquality childcare (irrespective of childcaretype) is associated with better childoutcomes (Sammons et al., 2002).

Martin (2001) suggests three reasons forthe interest internationally in ECCE.Firstly, an awareness of the positiveeducational, emotional and social outcomesof ECCE has increased interest in theprovision of high quality childcare.Secondly, quality ECCE services have thepotential to alleviate some of the negativeeffects of poverty and can act as a powerfulmechanism in initiatives designed to breakthe cycle of disadvantage. Thirdly, ECCEservices can promote equal opportunitiesfor men and women particularly in relation

to participation within the work force(Martin, 2001). As Martin (2001:4)concludes:

Quality early childhood policies andprogrammes focus primarily on thebest interests of children, and servealso the important goals of equity andsocial integration.

1.3 National Context

Sections 1.3-1.5 provide a brief overview ofthe national context. The CECDE has alsoproduced a comprehensive NationalReview of Policy, Practice and Research inrelation to Quality in ECCE, which will bepublished in Autumn 2004. Thoughconcern with the issue of quality in ECCEin Ireland is recent, this does not mean thatunderstandings of what constitutes qualityin the Irish context do not exist. Kiernan(2003) notes that there are currentlynumerous developments concerning qualitytaking place at both the policy, the practiceand the research level in Ireland. Thefollowing section outlines some of the mostsignificant developments in the areas ofpolicy, practice and research regardingquality.

1.3.1 National Policy Context

Quality is a key focus of policymaking inrelation to both education and care inIreland. As the CECDE audit noted in termsof government publications:

…all documents pertaining to earlychildhood care and education containthe issue of quality as an integralelement. (CECDE, 2003:52)

The 1990s marked a critical point inemerging policy on ECCE. According toHayes (2002b), policy was progressed bytwo separate elements, the recognition ofthe value of ECCE for those at risk of

Chapter 1

Introduction

3

educational disadvantage and the period ofunprecedented economic growth resultingin a labour market shortage and thegrowing participation of women in thelabour force. Irish policy making in theECCE sector can be broadly divided intotwo categories. The first category comprisespolicies that are equality driven and focuson facilitating female labour forceparticipation; these are concerned with theprovision of care outside the home. Oneexample of this is the National ChildcareStrategy (Department of Justice, Equalityand Law Reform [DJELR], 1999).

The second category comprises of policiesfocused on ECCE (Hayes, 2001). Inaddition, Hayes (2002b) points out that amore recent policy initiative has articulatedan alternative policy approach, influencedby the needs and rights of children e.g. theNational Children's Strategy (Departmentof Health and Children [DHC], 2000). Thisapproach lies within an environmentalpolicy theory perspective (Carroll, 2002), aperspective that is concerned with affectingthe environment in which children areraised and which seeks to transform thechild's upbringing and well-being. Hayes(2002b:183) suggests that this perspectivemay provide a solution to the dualisticnature of policy formation under thebanners of education and care.

In this section government policypertaining to quality in ECCE is outlined interms of the three policy makingapproaches, a labour market approach, anenvironmental policy approach and aneducation approach. In addition, some keypieces of legislation and initiativesconcerning quality are also highlighted.

1.3.1.1 The National ChildcareStrategy

The National Childcare Strategy sees aquality childcare service as:

…one which provides enhancingexperiences for children and positive

interactions between adults andchildren. (DJELR, 1999:49)

The Strategy views quality in terms of theappropriateness of the learningenvironment, staff child ratios, training andadequate pay on the part of staff,partnerships with parents and localcommunity and the importance of diversityand accessibility (DJELR, 1999).

1.3.1.2 The White Paper on EarlyChildhood Education

The White Paper on Early ChildhoodEducation, Ready to Learn, formulatesproposals in several areas relating toquality including the introduction of aQuality in Education mark (QE) for ECCEservices (DES, 1999). This mark is to beawarded to providers of early educationservices who meet defined standardsconcerning staff qualifications, training,learning objectives, methodologies andcurriculum (DES, 1999:54-55).

1.3.1.3 The National Children'sStrategy

The National Children's Strategy, OurChildren - Their Lives (DHC, 2000) is aten-year plan for all children, designed toimprove the quality of the lives of allchildren through co-ordination andplanning at national and local level. Qualitychildcare services are one objective of theNational Children's Strategy. The Strategyalso proposed that:

…early education and childdevelopment programmes will bedeveloped, based on the White Paperon Early Childhood Education, tomeet the needs of all children, as partof a quality service programme.(DHC, 2000:52)

1.3.1.4 Regulations

While the Child Care (Pre-School Services)Regulations (Department of Health, 1996)

Chapter 1

Introduction

4

set down minimum standards in areas ofquality such as health and safety, child-adult ratios, insurance, size and conditionof premises across the various types of pre-school provision. However:

…there is no national inspectionmechanism to assess other indicatorsof quality, such as curriculum andqualifications of practitioners.(CECDE, 2003:52)

The Education Act (DES, 1998) and theEducation (Welfare) Act (DES, 2000) setout standards for all aspects of a school'sfunctioning. Emphasis is placed on aspectsof quality such as the promotion of bestpractice in teaching methods, thepromotion of equality of access, the rightsof parents and the establishment ofeffective communication between theschools and the wider community (Kiernan,2003:5).

1.3.1.5 The Equal OpportunitiesChildcare Programme (EOCP)

The National Childcare Strategy providesthe framework for the EOCP, which hasthree key aims, one of which is to improvethe quality of childcare in Ireland (AreaDevelopment Management [ADM], 2003b).The EOCP includes a grant scheme forquality improvement (Sub-Measure 3):

…designed to support improvementsin the quality of childcare serviceprovision generally through thetraining and education of childcareworkers and the establishment ofsupport networks for childcareproviders. (ADM, 2003a:1)

Up to €85 million of the €449 million inEOCP funding has been allocated directlyto quality improvement. The DJELR alsoestablished a series of structures at nationaland local level to ensure the effectivedevelopment of childcare, thus promotinghigh standards within the sector. Theinterim evaluation of the EOCP concluded

that the progress made, particularly inrespect of the Quality Improvement Sub-measure, was disappointing. One of themain deficiencies cited was in respect of theassessment of tangible outcomes due to theabsence of indicators to capture the outputsof the National Voluntary ChildcareOrganisations and the County ChildcareCommittees regarding quality (NationalDevelopment Plan/Community SupportFramework [NDP/CSF], 2003:62). Thereport made a number of recommendationsto improve this situation.

1.3.1.6 Educational Disadvantage

There are some initiatives to tackleeducational disadvantage funded by theDES. These include the Early Start pre-school programme, the Breaking the CycleInitiative, Giving Children an Even Breakand the Rutland Street project. Theseinitiatives provide information on whatconstitutes quality in ECCE. For example,the Early Start Programme:

…emphasises the importance of (1)good staff child ratios, (2) a wellthought out, developmentallyappropriate curriculum, (3) parentaland community involvement, and (4)the importance of easing thetransition into formal schooling forchildren. (Kiernan, 2003:5)

1.3.1.7 The Centre for EarlyChildhood Development andEducation (CECDE)

The CECDE is charged with thedevelopment of a National Framework forQuality (NFQ) for the ECCE sector, andwith "…support(ing) providers in relationto compliance with quality standards…"(CECDE, 2001:11). The CECDE Programmeof Work therefore includes:

…developing guidelines andstandards in the areas identified inthe White Paper (curriculum and

Chapter 1

Introduction

5

methodology, equipment andmaterials, staff and qualifications)and in relation to parentalinvolvement. (CECDE, 2001:3)

1.4 National PracticeContext

As illustrated above, quality in ECCE hasbeen a key focus of several recent policydevelopments. There is also interest withinthe sector itself in the issue of quality. Atpractice level, there have been a number ofguides to good practice published byvoluntary organisations which addressissues of quality from the perspective ofpractitioners (French, 2003). One exampleof this is the Good Practice Self AssessmentManual, produced by the NationalChildren's Nurseries Association (NCNA),"…designed to act as a guide to improvethe quality of service provision for full daycare providers" (Kelly, 2000:vii). Themanual covers issues such as theidentification of needs of children, parentsand staff, assessing the quality of careprovided and management skills. Inaddition, each issue has a number ofcomponents. For example, physical needs,language needs, cognitive needs and socialand emotional needs are addressed underthe heading of identification of needs. Eachsection of the manual involves self-assessment, usually in the form of a ratingscale. It is intended that full day careproviders will use the manual to assesstheir current abilities in a number ofdifferent areas, looking at how practice canbe improved and lead to change.

A number of organisations have initiated"…innovative quality assuranceinitiatives…" (Kiernan, 2003:6), which aimto improve the quality of provision inservices. The Border Counties ChildcareNetwork (BCCN) outline six qualityassurance/improvement programmes, alldesigned to improve the standards andquality of services including the BCCN,

FÁS/Barnardos, High/Scope, IPPA, theEarly Childhood Organisation, the NationalChildren's Nurseries Association and St.Nicholas Montessori Teachers' Association(BCCN, 2004). Quality assurance/improvement programmes have severalfeatures in common; they all involve self-evaluation, training and support andexternal evaluation. However, there aredifferences in the extent to which thesefeatures can be found in any oneprogramme. In some qualityassurance/improvement programmes,providers determine what will be assessed,while in other programmes, assessmentcriteria are laid down (Kiernan, 2003).Quality assurance/improvementprogrammes vary in the amount and typeof training and support they offer toproviders. They also differ in the extent towhich they see external validation as anongoing process or as a sign of an end point(Kiernan, 2003). However, in outlining thevariety of quality assurance/improvementprogrammes available to providers, theBCCN note that:

…all of the above agencies would liketo see the development of a nationalaccreditation system for all qualityprogrammes implemented in earlychildhood care and educationservices. (BCCN, 2004:2)

1.5 National ResearchContext

At research level, little attention has beenpaid to the issue of quality in Ireland(CECDE, 2003). The Audit of Researchconducted by the CECDE in 2003concluded that:

…there has been little research in thearea of Quality in the Irish context,both in relation to quality indicatorsor the evaluation of more subtle andintangible aspects of quality.(CECDE, 2003:141)

Chapter 1

Introduction

6

Kiernan noted that although there were inexcess of 1,000 publications in the Audit,only a minority related to quality. Thus ourfrequent discussions and debates regardingquality "…are largely unsubstantiated bypublished Irish research, there is atendency I think for us to draw more oninternational research." (Kiernan, 2003:7)In an effort to address the dearth ofresearch concerning quality in the Irishcontext, the CECDE have identified and arein the process of carrying out research on anumber of strands (CECDE, 2004b). Thisincludes the recruitment of four Ph.Dstudents who will carry out research inareas such as parental involvement inTraveller pre-schools, the transition frompre-school to primary school, the use ofplay in pre-school services and the role ofassessment in ECCE settings.

Horgan and Douglas (2001) synthesise thefindings of a number of observationalstudies conducted on children in a varietyof ECCE settings including junior infantclasses, Montessori schools, communityplaygroups, junior infant classes inGaelscoileanna1 and Naíonraí2 . In anoverview of their findings, Cleary et al.suggest that:

…situations which allowed somedegree of agency to children inprogressing their own learning,within a structured programme, havethe most positive outcomes. (Cleary etal., 2001:xxv)

Other aspects of quality highlighted byHorgan and Douglas (2001) in their reviewof research included the attitude of theECCE practitioner, the importance oftraining and a child-centred curriculum.

1.6 Context of the Review

One of the key pieces of work to beundertaken by the CECDE is theproduction of a National Framework forQuality (NFQ) in ECCE. The developmentof this framework can be divided into threekey tasks:

1. The development of a set of corestandards which will define quality inthe Irish context;

2. The development of a system ofinspection or assessment to ensurethat this quality is achieved and;

3. The development of an infrastructureto support all those working in thesector to accomplish quality asdefined by the standards. (CECDE,2004c:6)

Four independent but interrelated pieces ofwork will be involved in the development ofthe NFQ:

A Conceptual Framework on how YoungChildren Develop and Learn in Ireland;

A National Review of Policy, Practiceand Research in relation to Quality inECCE;

An International Review of Quality inECCE;

A report of a series of ConsultativeSeminars with stakeholders in ECCE,Talking About Quality (CECDE, 2004c).

This review is one piece of work undertakenas part of the development of the NFQ. Theterms of reference of the review are:

The review of international policy,practice and research pertaining toquality in ECCE will focus on at least 6countries including, for example,Sweden, New Zealand, Germany,Northern Ireland and Italy.

The review of international policy,practice and research will examineECCE for all children, including thoseexperiencing educational disadvantageand those with special needs.

The review of international policy,practice and research will culminate in

1 Gaelscoileanna are primary schools in which the Irishlanguage is used as the medium of instruction.

2 Naíonraí groups are preschool settings in which the Irishlanguage is used as the medium of communication.

Chapter 1

Introduction

7

recommendations for the developmentof the NFQ.

It is anticipated that the review will beundertaken over a period of 10 weekswith the end of March 2004 as thecompletion date.

Desk/documentary research methodswill be employed to undertake thisreview.

The commissioned body will workclosely with the CECDE Director andAssistant Director to produce an interimand a final draft.

The commissioned body will have accessto the CECDE’s information resourcesand assistance.

1.6.1 The Value of Cross-NationalWork

According to Moss (2000), the question ofthe value of cross-national research hasemerged as a result of the twodevelopments in the ECCE sector; firstlythe rapidly growing literature based oncross-national comparisons and secondlythe:

…increasing tendency to refer toresearch from a variety of countriesin support of particular conclusions.(Moss, 2000:4)

There are several reasons why a cross-national review of policy, practice andresearch pertaining to quality in ECCE is ofvalue. A cross-national review can provokecritical thinking. Examining issues in othercountries can provide one with a new focusand make the familiar look strange, leadingto the questioning of assumptions andpractices that are otherwise taken forgranted:

The lens of Country A may make iteasier to see in Country B what isuncritically taken for granted andmake the invisible visible and familiarstrange, so enabling dominantassumptions, discourses andconstructions in Country B to be

questioned. (Moss, 2000:4)

A cross-national review can reveal theparticular understandings of childhood,learning, care, and work with children,which influence the shaping of both policiesand practices (Moss et al., 2003).

A cross-national review carries thepotential for change (Moss, 2000) as it canhighlight the range of approaches adoptedby countries in terms of the development ofECCE provision (OECD, 2001). While notsuggesting that policies and programmescan simply be exported from one country toanother, one of the benefits of cross-national work is that it illustratesalternative ways of thinking and acting.Even if a decision is made to progress withcurrent policies and practices, a reviewensures that this decision will be aconsidered choice, based on the evaluationof a number of possibilities (Moss et al.,2003).

Any review of policy, practice and researchacross several countries can contribute topolicy development and innovation inECCE (OECD, 2001). Research studiesfrom one country are often used to justifypolicy initiatives in another and policiesfrom one country are often modified andadapted for use by another (Moss et al.,2003).

A cross-national review can also provideinformation on international trends inpolicy and service delivery, for example, thegrowing tendency to adopt an integratedapproach to service delivery in ECCE(OECD, 2001).

1.7 Rationale for Choice ofCountry

Using Esping-Andersen's (Esping-Andersen, 1990) Typology of Welfare Statesas a framework for selection, six countrieswere chosen for this review in consultation

Chapter 1

Introduction

8

with the CECDE. These countries wereNorway, Sweden, Portugal, Germany,Northern Ireland and New Zealand. ThisTypology of Welfare States was seen asuseful in selecting countries as differentwelfare regimes reflect and reproduceparticular ways of thinking and acting. Thisis particularly relevant with respect torelationships between the family, themarket and the State, all of which influenceand impact on the provision of ECCEservices.

Esping-Anderson proposed three maintypes of welfare state, distinguishable interms of decommodification3 and socialstratification (Esping-Andersen, 1990).This typology was criticised by feminists forignoring the gender consequences ofwelfare states, for example, it did not takeaccount of social policies that supportedworking mothers such as public provisionof childcare, maternity and parental leaves(Orloff, 1993; Sainsbury, 1994). Esping-Andersen (1999) responded to this criticismby adding the variable of 'defamilialization'to his analysis to include the family as aunit of welfare provision in addition to theState and the market (Estévez-Abe, 2002).The addition of this variable was anattempt to capture to which degree welfareregimes facilitated equal labour marketparticipation by women, and hence to whatextent social reproduction was guaranteedby either State, market or family (Engelen,2003). Defamilialization refers to:

…the degree to which households'welfare and caring responsibilitiesare relaxed - either via welfare stateprovision, or via market provision.

(Esping-Andersen, 1999:51)

Both public provision of social services andthe availability of relatively cheap privatecare services lead to defamilialization(Estévez-Abe, 2002). Esping-Andersen(1999) noted that while some welfareregimes defamilialised care, others did not.The three main types of welfare stateproposed by Esping-Andersen are outlinedbelow.

1.7.1 Social Democratic/NordicWelfare Regime

According to Engelen (2003), indecommodified and defamilialized welfareregimes, the level of welfare protectionagainst the exigencies of the market is high,and social reproduction is largely takenover by the State. Public employment ishigh, providing a generous job outlet forwomen in particular. Significant levels oftaxation imply limited opportunities for lowvalue-added service activities. Countriesthat can be classified as social democraticwelfare states include the Nordic countriesof Norway and Sweden.

1.7.2 Continental Europe/Conservative Welfare Regimes

In decommodified and familialized welfareregimes, the level of welfare protection isgenerally just as high as that found in socialdemocratic welfare states, but socialreproduction is largely a matter for thehousehold or the extended family.According to Engelen (2003), this results ina high wage/high skill economy and a lowlevel of female labour market participation.This type of welfare regime is characteristicof the countries of Continental Europe suchas Portugal and Germany.

1.7.3 Anglo-Saxon/Liberal WelfareRegimes

In commodified regimes, the differencebetween defamilialized and familialized interms of the welfare regimes is

3 Esping-Andersen explains de-commodification as follows"In pre-capitalist societies, few workers were properlycommodities in the sense that their survival was contingentupon the sale of their labor power. It is as markets becomeuniversal and hegemonic that the welfare of individuals comesto depend entirely on the cash nexus. Stripping society of theinstitutional layers that guaranteed social reproductionoutside the labor contract meant that people werecommodified. In turn, the introduction of modern social rightsimplies a loosening of the pure commodity status. De-commodification occurs when a service is rendered as a matterof right, and when a person can maintain a livelihood withoutreliance on the market.” (Esping-Andersen 1990:21-22)

Chapter 1

Introduction

9

unimportant (Engelen 2003). Theseregimes are characterised by a high degreeof marketisation, limited collective welfareprotection and a prevalence of privatearrangements for social reproduction. AsState responsibilities are limited (means-tested benefits etc.), non-wage labour costsare low, making low wage activitieseconomically viable. Countries that fit thismodel tend to be English speaking andinclude Northern Ireland and New Zealand.Ireland most broadly fits into the Anglo-Saxon/liberal welfare regime in terms ofEsping-Andersen's Typology of WelfareStates.

As noted above, different welfare regimeshave engaged to varying degrees inprocesses of defamilialization, for example,they may have developed policies regardingchildcare, enabling women to reduce theirfamily responsibilities, especially for thecare of young children (Moss et al., 2003).Defamilialization entails significantinvestment in ECCE services. The Nordicwelfare regimes are notable for the extentto which they have pursued and achievedprocesses of defamilialization, while thecountries of Continental Europe are highlyfamilialistic (Moss et al., 2003).

There is considerable diversity amongcountries grouped within the same welfareregime; in particular, this is true of thosecountries classified as Conservative welfarestates. There are stronger similaritiesbetween those countries with Nordicwelfare regimes and among those countrieswith liberal welfare regimes (Moss et al.,2003).

In the selection of countries for this review,an attempt was made to ensure equalrepresentation from each of the three typesof welfare regime. It was also felt that itwas important to include Northern Irelandas in Ireland, harmonisation of policies is acritical objective in light of the Good FridayAgreement (Northern Ireland Office,Accessed at: http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreement.htm, 14th March, 2004).

1.8 Aspects of Quality

Included

Though the way in which quality is definedmay vary from country to country, there isa general consensus among researchersregarding the elements of ECCE that areassociated with positive outcomes forchildren. These include:

Adequate investment;

A co-ordinated policy and regulatoryframework;

Efficient and co-ordinated managementsystems;

Adequate levels of staff training andworking conditions;

A pedagogical framework and otherconditions;

Regular systems of monitoring and;

Equality and diversity (OECD, 2001).

The way in which quality is defined isfurther explored in Chapter 2. In thissection, the way in which information wascategorised by headings and the reasons forlooking at particular aspects of quality areoutlined.

Countries vary in the way in which theydefine, measure and support quality. Undereach country heading the review isorganised into four sections:

1. Defining quality;

2. Measuring quality;

3. Supporting quality and;

4. Educational disadvantage and specialneeds.

Each chapter concludes with implicationsfor the development of the NFQ in Ireland.What is included under each of theseheadings varies from country to country,according to the particular features of thatcountry's ECCE system. For example, somecountries regulate for staff qualifications inECCE settings. In such countries, the issueof training is included when looking atdefining quality. In other countries with norequirements for qualified staff in ECCEsettings, training is located under the

Chapter 1

Introduction

10

heading supporting quality. Thusinformation in relation to defining qualityfocuses primarily on the regulatory context,while information under supporting qualityfocuses on the measures that aim to raisequality above minimum standards.Measuring quality focuses on the inspectionframework for ECCE.

A variety of components of quality wereexamined across the six countries. Thissection provides a brief outline of thereason for the inclusion of these issues,highlighting their links with the issue ofquality.

1.8.1 Philosophy

The philosophy, or the way in which ECCE,and more broadly childhood itself, isviewed in any particular country has asignificant effect on the determination ofwhat constitutes quality in any particularcountry. Bennett (2000:6) notes that:

…the organisation of a nationalnetwork of quality child services is acomplex process embedded in a muchlarger system that includes macropolicies and ideologies. Failure tounderstand the contexts and systemicdecisions that influence the lives ofchildren places too much weight onthe importance of early childhoodservices in themselves, and inparticular, on the practitioners whohave direct contact with children.

1.8.2 Policy Approach

A co-ordinated policy framework wasidentified by the OECD (2001) as one wayin which quality in the early years could besupported. Ideally, the OECD view onedepartment with overall responsibility forECCE, working in cooperation with otherdepartments, as the best approach to adoptin achieving coherent and participatorypolicy development. Where theresponsibility for children is divided

between two different departments (such aseducation and welfare), provision has atendency to operate as two distinct systems(Moss et al., 2003). According to Moss(1994), the integration of a variety ofprovision under one department provides acoherent approach to quality. Naturally, thepolicy approach adopted by a country hasimplications for the financing of the ECCEsystem.

1.8.3 Funding

An important contextual factor inpromoting high quality childcare is funding(Childcare Resource and Research Unit[CRRU], 1997:15). Candappa et al. (2003)remark that the choice of fundingmechanisms varies across countries and islinked to the type of welfare regimeadopted. Candappa et al. (2003) outlinethree main types of funding for services;public funding, employer levy or tax andparental fees. It is suggested that ECCEprovided by welfare systems usually involvea contribution from parents, while thosebased on education systems are free(Candappa et al., 2003). However, the useof demand or supply subsidies is not alwaysstraight-forward. The Nordic countries aremore likely to use supply subsidies, theEnglish language countries are more likelyto utilize demand subsidies, while somecountries use both.

When services are provided by privateentrepreneurs responding to parentaldemand, Myers (2000) suggests that thegovernment can lose some control overstandards, and thus the quality of services.Myers (2000:85) questions whether, inthis situation, parents have the"…knowledge and energy to monitor anddemand quality in the centers…" andquestions whether the "…profit motive…"can lead providers to cut corners that resultin a lowering of the quality of the service.Other researchers have also questioned thereliance on the market as a provider ofquality childcare. Friesen (1995) carried outa study in Canada, looking at childcare in

Chapter 1

Introduction

11

the province of Alberta. At the time of thestudy, the regulatory framework was weakand there was an average vacancy rate ofapproximately twenty per cent acrosscentres. Despite this Friesen (1995) foundthat the competition for users was notsufficient to motivate for profit centres toprovide a higher quality of childcare.

Mahon (2001:10) is also cautious of the useof the markets and demand subsidies whenit comes to quality:

The choice of policy instruments,focused on the demand side, does littleto encourage the development of ahigh quality childcare infrastructure,offering good jobs to those whoprovide care. Nor does it do much tocounteract inequality in marketpower, though enrichmentprogrammes for designated areasmay improve access for the veryworst off.

1.8.4 Auspice (Delivery Strategy)

The term "auspice" refers to the operator ofa service. Friesen (1995) identified threedifferent types of auspice in childcare:

1. Non-profit organisations;

2. For-profit organisations and;

3. Municipal levels of government.

The organisational goals of profit and not-for-profit childcare facilities are differentand these goals drive decisions regardinglevel and type of employee; permittedemployee behaviour, the physical facilityand the programme. Friesen (1995:9)suggests that:

…all these organisationalcharacteristics have a direct and veryimportant impact on the level ofquality of service offered.

In terms of global measures of quality,studies conducted in the USA using theEarly Childhood Environment Rating Scale

(ECERS) suggest that non-profit centresprovide a higher quality of care than profitcentres. Caregivers in non-profit centresare more likely to engage in appropriateinteraction with children and are moresensitive to their needs (Whitebook et al.,1990). Friesen (1995), in a review of studiesthat have examined auspice and quality,notes that for-profit centres have morechildren than not-for-profit centres, thatcaregiver education is higher in not-for-profit centres and that the turnover rate ofstaff is lower in not for-profit centres.Friesen (1995:14) concludes that "…qualityis more likely to be found in a non profitcentre."

Research in New Zealand also suggests thatcommunity-owned childcare facilitiesemploy a significantly higher proportion ofstaff with a teaching qualification and alower proportion of staff with no ECCEqualifications than privately ownedchildcare facilities (Mitchell, 2002).Differences between community andprivate childcare facilities also emerged inNew Zealand in terms of actions takenfollowing a funding cutback (Mitchell,2002). Private childcare facilities weremore likely to reduce overheads by makingnegative changes to staff (poorer ratios,bigger groups, redundancy, less in-servicetraining), staff working conditions, the non-replacement of equipment or buildings etc.Community-based facilities were morelikely to look for savings in areas that keptstaff and conditions intact (Mitchell, 2002).

1.8.5 Staff Qualifications

Research has highlighted the link betweenprofessional education and the provision ofa high quality ECCE service (Blenkin et al.,1996; Abbott and Pugh, 1998; Feeney andFreeman, 1999). Oberhuemer and Ulich(1997:3) note that:

…childcare and education servicesoutside the compulsory school system- and particularly services for youngchildren - are currently expanding in

Chapter 1

Introduction

12

many countries. The demand forprofessional workers will invariablyincrease. … staffing is one of the keyquality factors in centre basedsettings. Decisions made aboutstaffing will be decisions made aboutthe quality of the service.

Workforce training is identified as a keycomponent of quality childcare provision(OECD, 2001). According to Ball (1994:16)"…the calibre and training of theprofessionals are the key determinants ofhigh-quality provision." One way in whichgovernments attempt to improve thequality of ECCE offered is through raisingthe training and status of staff. Theprofessionalisation of the ECCE sector wasone of the key themes to emerge from theOECD Thematic Review (OECD, 2001).

1.8.6 Regulation

There is ongoing debate about the nature ofthe relationship between regulation andquality (O'Kane and Kernan, 2002). On theone hand, a large body of researchliterature, particularly in the USA, haslinked regulations to quality childcare.O'Kane and Kernan (2002) note that Statesin the USA with the most stringentregulations produce higher qualitychildcare than States with less stringentregulations. Philipsen et al. (1997:301)concluded in a study of childcare qualityacross four States that:

…higher quality was found in thestates with the most stringentregulations…These findings suggestthat childcare regulation does havean impact on the quality of care thatchildren experience.

Regulations impact not only on structuralaspects of quality such as staff-child ratiosbut also influence process quality. Researchcarried out in the USA (Philipsen et al.,1997) suggests that structural features ofpre-school classes can be used to predictprocess quality.

However the link between aspects of qualitythat can be regulated and process quality iscomplex; Cryer et al. (1999:354) note that"…there is no one single powerful predictorof process quality." However, they furthersuggest that:

…regulation might not only concernsetting standards for structuralcharacteristics of programs, but alsobe written to ensure the specific careand educational opportunities forchildren that are found in accepteddefinitions of process quality. (Cryeret al., 1999:354)

Others caution against using structuralindicators as an indication of processquality. Lamb (1998) remarks on the factthat the existence of structural qualitycannot be taken as a proxy for processquality. He further suggests that processquality which relies to a great degree oninteractions has a lot to do with the adultand the level of their training andmotivation. The issue of structural andprocess indicators of quality is furtherdiscussed in Chapter 2.

Some have expressed concern aboutassociation of regulations with anystandard of quality, apprehensive that theseminimum standards might becomesynonymous with quality (O'Kane andKernan, 2002). Additionally, the impact ofregulations varies depending on the ECCEcontext. Mooney et al. (2003) suggest thatregulations are more important where thereis little public subsidy for childcare andwhere levels of training and wages forpractitioners may be low:

In countries where the private marketpredominates and where structuralfeatures of early years and childcareservices are rather poor, (e.g. lowlevels of staff qualifications) externalevaluation and conforming tostandards may be a particularlystrong approach (Mooney et al.,

Chapter 1

Introduction

13

2003:5).

McGurk et al. (1995) highlight theimportance of external regulations for staffratios and other staffing features, whereservices are dependant on parental fees.They suggest that regulations may be lessimportant where ECCE is publicly funded.Significant public funding for childcarereduces the pressure on childcare facilitiesto limit labour costs by reducing staff:

Under conditions where mostprovision depends on parental abilityto pay, and where financial survivaland profit for many providers isprecarious, external regulations toensure adequate ratios and otherstaffing features is essential. It is animportant protection for children andparents against an understandablebut potentially damaging pressure tocut staffing - the major expense. (McGurk et al., 1995:25)

In looking at research examining the linkbetween administrative auspice and qualityof provision, Mitchell (2002) found thatnot-for-profit services provided a higherstandard of care and education than forprofit centres. Mitchell (2002:2) suggeststhat one feature which seems to weaken thelinkage between high quality and private orcommunity based childcare facilities "…is astringent regulatory framework."

1.8.7 Curriculum

Curriculum models are promoted as a wayof increasing quality in ECCE, as amechanism for the delivery of positive childoutcomes and as a mechanism to ensureaccountability:

Consistent implementation ofcurriculum models has the potentialto raise the standards of care andeducation experienced by youngchildren. In light of unevenexpectations for teachers' professionalpreparation and variability across

the states in child care licensingstandards, early childhoodcurriculum models can improveprogrammatic quality through theconsistent implementation of well-articulated curriculum frameworks,thereby lifting the floor of programquality in early childhood education.(Goffin, 2004:1)

Horgan (2002) notes that a curriculum isalways a socio-cultural construction.Curricula divide broadly into two types;official curricula issued by ministries orbased on ministry guidelines and curriculadeveloped by voluntary and otherorganisations such as developmentallyappropriate practice, e.g. Froebel,High/Scope, Montessori, Reggio Emilia andSteiner (Bertram and Pascal, 2002). Thereare two types of approaches found inofficial curricula; instructionist andconstructionist (McQuail et al., 2002). Theinstructionist approach emphasisespreparation for school and is focused onthe development of literacy and numeracyskills. The constructionist approach viewschildhood as a stage in its own right andfocuses on children as competent co-constructors of knowledge (Mc Quail et al.,2002).

1.8.8 Professional Development

According to Mitchell and Cubey (2003),professional development has an impact onthree domains; it enhances pedagogy,enhances children's learning andcontributes to the building of linkagesbetween the ECCE setting and othersettings. Eight characteristics of qualityprofessional development are outlined byMitchell and Cubey (2003:xii):

That professional developmentincorporates participants' ownaspirations, skills, knowledge andunderstanding into the learning context;

That professional development providestheoretical and content knowledge andinformation about alternative practices;

Chapter 1

Introduction

14

That participants are involved ininvestigating pedagogy within their ownECCE settings;

That participants analyse data fromtheir own settings. Revelation ofdiscrepant data is a mechanism toinvoke revised understanding;

That critical reflection enablingparticipants to investigate and challengeassumptions and extend their thinkingis a core aspect;

That professional development supportseducational practice that is inclusive ofdiverse children, families andcommunity;

That professional development helpsparticipants to change educationalpractice, beliefs, understanding, and/orattitudes;

That professional development helpsparticipants to gain awareness of theirown thinking, actions, and influence.

Structural conditions also impact onprofessional development (Mitchell andCubey, 2003). The duration and intensityof professional development, characteristicsof professional development participants,the professional development adviser andorganisation of the service are influential insupporting or hindering the ability ofparticipants to learn from professionaldevelopment and to change theirpedagogical practice.

1.8.9 Accreditation

Accreditation schemes aim to encourageproviders to raise their standards above theminimal requirements set by nationalregulations and standards. Mooney et al.(2003) suggest that accreditation schemesare more commonly found in countrieswith low levels of publicly funded ECCEservices. Accreditation schemes can beoffered by national or local governments orby professional or voluntary organizations.Because accreditation is voluntary,participation rates can be low. The QualityImprovement and Accreditation System in

Australia is one example of an accreditationprogramme that aims to improve thequality of ECCE by defining qualitychildcare, providing a way to measure thequality of care made available by theservice and identifying areas for ongoingquality improvement (National ChildcareAccreditation Council Inc., Accessed at:http://www.ncac.gov.au/quality_systems/quality_systems_index.html#whatarequalitysystems, 14th March, 2004).

1.8.10 Evaluation

Podmore et al. (2000) view evaluation asclosely connected to the provision of a highquality ECCE service. Evaluation is utilisedas a tool for quality assurance and qualityimprovement. Cubey and Dalli (1996)suggest that it is important to ensure theinvolvement of staff in the evaluation ofprogrammes, that evaluation criteria arenot simply externally imposed.

Self-evaluation has become increasinglyimportant in the provision of a qualityservice in ECCE. From a practitionerperspective, evaluation can examinewhether a particular programme is effectivein its outcomes and may highlight thoseaspects of practice that have beenparticularly effective (Curtis, 2000). Self-evaluation is an important tool in thedevelopment of the reflective practitioner(Cubey and Dalli, 1996) and brings with itthe possibility of change (Money et al.,2003).

1.8.11 Research

Research on the issue of quality in theECCE sector is also examined as this maybe used as a basis for decision-making.Research also has an important role to playin evaluating the effectiveness of qualityinitiatives.

1.8.12 Inspection

One way in which governments can ensure

Chapter 1

Introduction

15

compliance with the standards of qualitylaid down is through inspections. In somejurisdictions compliance with regulations isseen as the main objective of the inspectionprocess, while others view the provision ofsupport and advice as a key objective of theinspection process (Mooney et al., 2003).Some countries have centralised inspectionservices while others have devolvedresponsibility for inspection to themunicipalities (Mooney et al., 2003).

1.9 Overview of the Report

Quality is the main focus of the remainderof the report. Chapter 2 contains adiscussion of the issue of quality, whichincludes looking at the way in which qualityis defined, measured and supported. Apost-modern critique of quality is alsoincluded in this chapter.

Chapters three to eight present issues ofquality for each of the individual countriesprofiled in this review. As noted above, thecountries profiled are grouped togetheraccording to welfare regime. Norway andSweden, the two representatives of theNordic countries are profiled first. TheContinental welfare regimes of Portugaland Germany are profiled in chapters fiveand six. Lastly, issues of quality in theLiberal Welfare regimes of NorthernIreland and New Zealand are profiled inChapters seven and eight. Each country'sprofile concludes with a list of implicationsfor the development of the NFQ in Ireland.Chapter 9 presents a synthesis of some ofthe main findings regarding quality in thecountries included in the review anddiscusses some recommendations for theIrish context, based on the evidencepresented in this report.

Under each country heading the review isorganised into seven sections:

1. Introduction

2. Context for quality

3. Defining quality

4. Measuring quality

5. Supporting quality

6. Educational disadvantage and specialneeds

7. Implications for the development of theNFQ.

16

Quality

2.1 Introduction

The issue of quality and what constitutesquality is a prevalent question in the ECCEsector. There is no one definition of qualityand all attempts at a definition is context-linked and time specific. As French(2000:12) notes:

…quality is no longer viewed as onestandard of excellence identified forall children in all services, but rathera set of core criteria towards whichservices may progress and againstwhich their progress can bemeasured.

Another perspective is offered by Farquhar(1999:1), stating that the term is a:

…convenient adjective, because itsaves thinking of a more precise termand also it has a nice sound to it andgives importance to one's topic ofresearch.

Nevertheless, given the complexity of theterm 'quality,' the exact nature of theconcept, how it is defined, described andmeasured cannot be ignored. In thischapter, the concept of quality is examined.Section 2.2 focuses on some of the reasonswhy quality has come to the fore in debatesregarding the care and education of youngchildren. The third section considers whatis meant when one looks at quality andoutlines some of the common componentsof the definition of quality. The role of avariety of stakeholders in determining theway in which quality is viewed is discussedin section four. Mechanisms to measurequality are examined in Section 2.5, whilesection 2.6 focuses on the ways in whichquality and quality improvement can besupported. Section 2.7 presents a critique ofthe discourse of quality.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2

Quality

17

2.2 Quality in Focus

Internationally there is much interest in theissue of quality in ECCE. "The issue ofquality has both a professional and anadministrative dimension" (FederalMinistry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens,Women and Youth, 2000:2) and it is forthese two main reasons that quality hasemerged as such a topic of concern inECCE.

In part, this can be seen as the result ofchanges in the economic and politicalsphere (DJELR, 2004), in particular thecrisis in the welfare state that has focusedattention on social spending. According toBennett (2000:22), this has led to a greaterscrutiny of social and educational budgetsand "…great attention has been given tocost efficiency, financial management andthe use of resources". This change ischaracterised by a shift in concern frominputs (such as expenditure, investmentsetc.) towards measuring comparativeoutputs (literacy, numeracy levels atparticular ages, extent of children's learningetc). In this context, the concept of qualityis used to defend spending on ECCEprogrammes. The concept of quality hasmoved from the private to the public sphere(Dahlberg et al., 1999) and has becomeincreasingly important in economic andpolitical life:

The concept of quality has beenwholeheartedly embraced by thoseseeking to rationalise and shake upthe public sector in the UK…because itincludes notions of efficiency,competition, value for money andempowering the customer ... that thewelfare system can justify their costin terms of tangible benefits andmeasurable efficiency. (Williams,1994:5)

There has been a change in the socialcontext of ECCE, in part as a result of theincrease in the female labour force

participation rate. In many Europeancountries, responsibility for the care andeducation of children has been transferredfrom the family domain to publicinstitutions. This growth in demand forchildcare institutions has led to a greaterfocus on the pedagogical role of earlychildhood institutions and interest in therole played by these institutions in theprovision of support to families (FederalMinistry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens,Women and Youth, 2000:2). In Ireland, thelabour force participation rate of womenincreased significantly throughout the1990s and the National Childcare Strategyidentified the increased participation ofwomen in the workforce as "…one of themost important factors currentlyinfluencing the demand for childcare."(DJELR, 1999:2)

Traditionally in Ireland, mothers of veryyoung children were the most likely to stayout of the labour market, while motherswho left employment when their childrenwere small were likely to re-enter thelabour market as their children reachedschool going age (DJELR, 1998:20). Recentevidence suggests that this trend ischanging with mothers with one childunder five more likely to be in employmentthan mothers with children over the age offive (ADM, 2003c).

Concerns about the nature of quality andECCE in childhood institutions has alsobeen fuelled by the ideology ofmotherhood, the particular views thatWestern societies have regarding the careof young children (Mooney and Munton,1997). The ideology of motherhood refers tothe belief that young children needexclusive maternal care for successfuldevelopment and that that care outside thehome may be damaging to children'sdevelopment. Research has found this viewto be held by a significant proportion ofthose involved in the care of youngchildren, particularly concerning care forchildren in the first year (Mooney et al.,2001). It is a view that emerges in the

Chapter 2

Quality

18

media from time to time, examples can besee with headlines such as "The damagethat work can do to your child"(Humphreys, Irish Times January 27th,1998) and "Worried about leaving yourchildren with minders while you workaway from home? You should be." (White,Irish Times, December 1st, 2001)

The ideology of motherhood gains strengthfrom the uncritical attitude we haveregarding parental care and the view that"…any particular mother will give care toher child that is at least good enough."(Helburn and Bergmann, 2002:60) Thisideology of motherhood automaticallyplaces any alternative sources of care in thenegative position. Childcare research hasbeen influenced by this particular ideologyof motherhood, as evidenced by thenumerous studies focused on attachmenttheory. Attachment theory suggested thatsuccessful social and emotionaldevelopment on the part of the childdepended upon the development of awarm, intimate and continuousrelationship with the primary caregiver,defined in the early literature as the mother(Mooney and Munton, 1998).

In a review of the literature, Rutter (1995)concluded that although empirical evidencesupported the key features of attachmenttheory, some areas needed revision. Rutternoted that the healthy development of thechild did not depend entirely on childrenbecoming attached only to their mothers,that the formation of multiple,simultaneous attachments was quitenormal on the part of the child. As Rutter(1995:562) explained:

Children can cope well with severaladults caring for them, provided it isthe same adults over time andprovided that the individuals withwhom they have secure relationshipsare available at times when they aretired, distressed or facing challengingcircumstances.

The ideology of motherhood combined withthe increasing use of childcare has focusedattention on the issue of quality in ECCEservices.

2.2.1 The Rights of the Child

The United Nations (UN) Convention onthe Rights of the Child was ratified byIreland in 1992. This convention argues fora new attitude towards children, based noton meeting children's needs, but rather onthe recognition of children's rights as amatter of entitlement (Carroll, 2002).Article 6 of the Convention states that thechild has a right to life, survival anddevelopment. A holistic view of childdevelopment is taken; hence childdevelopment includes health and nutrition,and the spiritual, moral and socialdevelopment of the child where the child'spersonality, tastes and abilities areencouraged (UN, 1989:Article 6).

The UN Committee on the Rights of theChild is focusing in 2004 on ImplementingChild Rights in Early Childhood (UN,Accessed at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/doc/discussion.htm, 1st July,2004) in an attempt to broadenunderstanding and raise awareness aboutthe rights of young children. Discussionswill focus on two areas; starting soundpractices early (including the rights tosurvival and development of youngchildren, the rights to health, nutrition andeducation; and the rights to rest, leisureand to engage in play and recreationalactivities) and young children as full actorsof their own development (focusing onparticipation in the family, in the schoolsetting and in the community and the roleof day-care, early childhood programmes,pre-school, pre-primary and first years ofprimary education in promoting the childas a right-holder) (UN, Accessed at:http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/doc/discussion.htm, 1st July, 2004).

Gotts (1988) identifies childcare as anarrangement whereby adults from outside

Chapter 2

Quality

19

the family assist children with importantaspects of their development. As the UNConvention states that children are entitledto special protection, support and facilities,this leads Gotts (1988) to conclude thatchildcare should be regarded as a right forchildren. Childcare as a right of all childrenis a view that has been articulated inIreland both by the government and thevoluntary agencies working in the ECCEsector in Ireland. The Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform, in a speech in2000 at St. Andrew's Resource Centrestated that "Our children are our future.They have a right to quality childcare andit is our duty, indeed our obligation, toensure that their rights and needs are met"(DJELR, Accessed at: http://www.justice.ie/80256996005F3617/vWeb/wpJWOD4TFJHN, 1st July, 2004) while the principlesof voluntary organisations in the childcaresector such as the BCCN include that "Allchildren have the right to a high qualityearly childhood care and educationservice." (BCCN, Accessed at: http://www.bccn.ie/leafbccn.htm, 1st July, 2004)

The National Children's Strategy (DHC,2000) reflects the UN Convention on theRights of the Child and a high standard ofquality in ECCE services is clearly a key aimof the Strategy. One of the three nationalgoals for children presented in the Strategyis that "Children will receive qualitysupports and services to promote allaspects of their development" (DHC,2000:11). In addition, one of the objectivesof the Strategy is that "Children's earlyeducation and developmental needs will bemet through quality childcare services…"(DHC, 2000:50). These aims are reflectiveof the view of quality in terms of ECCEservices as a right of all children.

2.3 Defining Quality

It is important to note that quality is arelative concept. Quality as defined by theCollins English Dictionary is a degree or

grade of excellence or worth (HarperCollins, 1999:669). In other words, qualityis a term that expresses a relationshipbetween two distinct points. For example, ifstandards are exceptionally low, then whatmight in other circumstances be seen asmiddle standards become high, but onlyrelative to your boundary conditions. Thisis important as the acts of defining andmeasuring quality (while profiledseparately in this review) cannot beseparated. Quality will always be expressedin terms of certain standards(measurements or indicators) and thesemeasurements will in turn constitute thedefinition of quality in a particular context.

While the importance of quality in terms ofchildcare services is acknowledged and welldocumented, no single definition of whatconstitutes quality in childcare provisionexists. The idea of a universally acceptedstandard of quality has been rejected. Mossand Pence (1994:172) acknowledge qualityis in the eye of the beholder and it isrecognised that:

…quality in early childhood servicesis a constructed concept, subjective innature and based on values, beliefsand interests, rather than on objectiveand universal reality.

As quality is a relative, value-basedconcept, any definition of quality is subjectto change over time and defining quality isan ongoing process (Kamerman, 2001).

Definitions of quality will depend on thecultural values and constructions ofchildhood present in any particular society.For example, what constitutes a highquality service will differ in a society thatviews childhood as a time in and of itself,compared with a society that viewschildhood as a process of becominginvolved in the preparation of the child forhis/her role as a future citizen. The conceptof quality always needs to be contextualisedecologically and temporally to recognisecultural and other forms of diversity. In a

Chapter 2

Quality

20

comparison of quality in pre-schoolclassrooms across five countries using theECERS, it was found that:

…there is little convergence in thequality characteristics which scorerelatively high and low in Germanyand Austria when they are comparedwith Spain. (Tietze et al., 1996:463)

This illustrates the important role thatcontext plays in any determination ofquality.

The way in which quality is defined alsodepends on the purpose of the ECCEservice. Functions of ECCE include thepromotion of child development, meetingthe needs of parents for affordable care,providing a safe environment for childrendeemed to be at risk or encouraging respectfor the group as well as the individual child.

Any definition of quality is also as a resultof interplay, negotiation and possibleconflict between, and sometimes among,those stakeholder groups. Moss and Pence(1994) suggest that it is more accurate totalk about quality perspectives than auniversal standard of quality.

However, there are many commonelements in definitions of quality. Onecommon feature of many definitions ofquality is that it tends to distinguishbetween the dynamic (interactional) andthe static (structural) features of thechildcare environment (Love et al., 1996).Three dimensions of quality that are mostoften included in definitions of qualityinclude structural features (static), processfeatures (interactional) and outcomes,either from a parental or the child'sperspective. Wangmann (1995)distinguishes between two components ofquality in childcare, components thatcontribute to quality and components thatdetermine quality. Wangmann outlines fourdevelopmentally appropriate practices thatcontribute to quality:

1. Sensitive, responsive staff-childinteractions;

2. Implementation of appropriatecurricula;

3. High standards of health and safetyand;

4. Demonstrated staff-parent co-operation (Wangmann, 1995:73).

Components that contribute to quality arethose that provide favourable conditions inwhich good quality outcomes are mostlikely to occur.

Researchers using Bronfenbrenner's theoryof human ecology have divided quality intothree components; process quality,structural quality and the quality of theadult work environment (Kontos et al.,1995). These three components are seen asinterrelated and as associated withchildren's behaviour and development inchildcare. Process quality forms the base ofthe model as it is most directly related tochildren's behaviour, while at the secondlevel of the model are structural and adultwork environment quality components.

Thus, quality is most often defined in termsof a series of indicators or outcomes. Theseoutcomes can in turn determine the extentto which any particular service is defined ashigh quality. Any definition of qualitycannot therefore be considered separatelyfrom quality indicators. Aspects of theseelements of quality as cited in the researchliterature on ECCE are outlined below.However, any description of these elementsshould be mindful of the fact that they havebeen developed in the economicallyadvantaged regions of the world (Europeand North America), in particular socio-cultural contexts (Woodhead, 1998). In sofar as they contribute to a description ofquality, they are limited to a particular timeand place and connected to particularmacro structures at a societal level. Itshould be noted that the different keyfeatures of quality rarely operateindependently and this notion ofinterdependence between quality indices is

Chapter 2

Quality

21

an important one (Mooney and Munton,1997).

2.3.1 Structural Features

Structural features of quality, what Katz(1993:1) terms the "…top down…"perspective on quality includes elementssuch as the level of public funding, equityin terms of availability and affordability,staff qualifications and training, workingconditions for staff, group size and staff-child ratios (Moss et al., 2003). Manyresearch studies focus on what is termed"…the iron triangle…" - group size, adult-child ratios and providereducation/training (Phillips, 1988 cited inKontos et al., 1995:9) while Love et al.(1996) acknowledge that one of the mostcommonly measured variables of quality isstaff-child ratios.

There is substantial evidence (Vandell andWolfe, 2000) to suggest that these settingfeatures do predict some of the effects ofECCE programmes. Optimal structuralconditions create opportunities for morefavourable process conditions to occur inchildcare settings, and these, in turn, leadto more positive child outcomes (Howes etal., 1992). For example, when an adult isresponsible for providing care to a smallergroup of children, she is more likely totailor care to the particular needs of eachchild (Kontos et al., 1994). Adults who havemore formal education and specializedtraining tend to use this knowledge whenthey interact with children, and this enablesthem to be more sensitive and responsivein their caregiving (Kontos et al., 1994;Helburn, 1995).

There has also been considerable debateabout whether group size or staff-childratios could be seen as the critical factor interms of structural quality. It is probablytrue to say that there is broad agreementamong researchers and practitioners thatsmaller class sizes enable teachers toprovide better quality education on theassumption that there is more time for

interactions which may be considered animportant mediating mechanism fordevelopment and learning. Large scalestudies in the USA have found that areduction in class size to 15 children forchildren aged 5 to 8 years leads toincreased achievement in reading, mathsand sciences in later school and fewerrepeat years (Bowman et al., 2001).

In a report from the Tennessee Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project,Finn and Achilles (1990) are categoric intheir conclusion that small classes yieldsignificant and long-lasting improvement inacademic achievement. When compared tocounterparts in regular classes, childrenattending classes of 18 children or lessreached more advanced levels ofachievement in maths, reading and wordstudy skills. The gains were greatest forthose students identified as low-income orminority. These findings were also foundwhen the STAR students were compared tostudents in larger classes where the adult-child ratio was improved by the presence ofteaching assistants. Other researchconsidering whether group size or ratio isthe critical factor has also found thatimproving adult-child ratio by the additionof staff to the group is not as effective asdecreasing class size (Mosteller, 1995 citedin Bowman et al., 2001).

The research, however, is not conclusive,and some research suggests that whilesmaller class sizes do benefit youngchildren, there are questions about themerit of generalising the results and thatsimply lowering the class size may beinsufficient to guarantee positive effect(Goldstein and Blatchford, 1998; Pellegriniand Blatchford, 2000). The dynamic of thesystem and the impact of contexts nestedwithin the classroom itself must also betaken into account. There will, for instance,be a different impact on the child of wholegroup work in a group of thirty childrencompared to the impact of working in oneof six groups of five children.

Chapter 2

Quality

22

Moss (2000:13) suggests that there isconsiderable difference in the researchinterest on the issue of staff-child ratios asa measure of structural quality in differentcountries, with "…ratios seem to figuremore prominently in the US than in someother countries". Staff-child ratios are morelikely to be an issue for governmentregulation in countries where the privatesector contributes significantly to theprovision of ECCE services. It is suggestedthat the level at which staff-child ratios areset is a key determinant of staff costs, andso influences the ability of the privatesector to provide affordable childcareplaces. In countries where the privatesector does not provide a considerablenumber of childcare places, staff-childratios seem to be less of an issue.

Structural features of quality in ECCEservices are the easiest aspects of quality toimplement, as they are objective andquantifiable (CECDE, 2003) and are seento be the most enforceable aspects ofquality. Due to the ease with which data onthe structural aspects of quality can becollected, regulators often depend heavilyon measures of structural quality which areconcrete, objective and quantifiable(Doherty, 1997 cited in Taylor et al., 1999).

However, care must be taken when lookingat structural features, as they may notprovide a guarantee of quality (Larner andPhillips, 1994). Hayes et al. (2003)highlight the dangers of equating qualitywith lists of structural features; the dangerof checklist quality. Lamb (1998:75) notesthat "…centres that are characterised bygood adult-child ratios and are staffed bywell trained providers may still providecare of poor quality." Layzer et al. (1993)suggest that structural factors may only beimportant because they may stronglyinfluence the quality reflected in classroomprocesses. In the Cost, Quality and ChildOutcomes study in the USA, structuralfeatures only accounted for about half ofthe difference in quality among providers(Helburn, 1995). Blau (1997) suggests that

individual structural quality characteristicsmay be less important to quality than thedistinctive non-observed features of thecentre, such as the quality of centremanagement and leadership.

2.3.2 Process Features

Process or interactional features of qualityrefer to what happens in the setting, inparticular, the activities of children and theinteractions between children and adults(Moss et al., 2003). It includes activitiessuch as socially appropriate play withadults and peers and the exploration bychildren of materials in ways that fit theirage and developmental stage (Helburn andHowes, 1996). Interactional features ofquality include elements such as caregiversresponding to children's behaviour in asensitive and positive fashion, caregiversbeing involved in children's play andlearning activities, and the absence ofharshness in the management of children'sbehaviour. Another important aspect ofprocess quality is child-child interactions.As Shonkoff and Phillips (2000:313) note:

…high-quality care is associated withoutcomes that all parents want to seein their children…the ability toinitiate and sustain positiveexchanges with peers.

Child-child interactions can be used as anindicator of children's exposure to socialand language experiences (Hayes et al.,2003). A growing awareness of theimportance of child-child interactions inany determination of quality led to theaddition of child-child interactions to therevised ECERS scale. The importance ofinteractions with peers in children'sdeterminations of quality is also discussedin looking at stakeholders perspectives onquality.

Childcare Aware (2001) suggest someadditional indicators of process qualitychildcare may be needed for children withspecial needs. These include that every

Chapter 2

Quality

23

child is seen as individual and unique, thatchildren and families be treated in arespectful way, that learning activities,books and pictures reflect diversity, thatchildren with special needs can accesstherapeutic services such as occupationaltherapy, physical therapy and speechtherapy on site and that staff havecompleted training in special needs.

Helburn and Howes (1996) considerprocess quality to be an integral part ofquality, as it is directly related to children'sbehaviour in the childcare environment.Process features have been linked to highquality care and positive outcomes forchildren. Children in settings that scorehigh on measurements of process qualityhave higher scores on cognitive, social, andlanguage measures of development(Helburn, 1995). For example, childrenwith responsive and sensitive caregiverswho talked more to them did better thanothers on assessments of cognitive andlanguage development (NICHD EarlyChildcare Research Network, 2000).

The International Child Care and Education(ICCE) project examined quality in centre-based ECCE programmes for children aged3 to 6 across five countries, incorporatingGermany, Austria, Portugal, the USA andSpain (Tietze et al., 1996). Data wascollected in 1993-1994 using the ECERSand the Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS). Asubsequent study used the data collected toinvestigate the structural factors that weremost significant in predicting processquality (Cryer et al., 1999). Notabledifferences were found, for example, themost significant structural factorspredicting process quality in Germany werepositive scores on teacher tenure, teacher-child ratios, group size, and space affordedper child within settings (Cryer et al.,1999:346). In Portugal, positive scores onteacher experience, physical size,enrollment and director wages were relatedto process quality, while in the USA,teacher education, tenure, experience, age,wages, teacher-child ratios, proportion of

pre-schoolers and director education andexperience were found to be related toprocess quality.

Cryer et al. (1999) conclude that fourcountries examined from the original studyhad adopted different balances of thestructural characteristics associated withprocess quality. In comparing Germany andthe USA for example, Cryer et al. (1999)remark that in Germany, the level ofteacher training, teacher tenure anddirector experience was higher than in theUSA. However, despite this, the quality ofcare offered in both countries was notsignificantly different. They suggest that:

…when planning to improve theprocess quality that childrenexperience, manipulation of quality ofone or two significant structures maywell appear to be a "best bet" forchange. (Cryer et al., 1999:356)

This suggests that an understanding of howstructural characteristics impact on qualitywithin a specific national system will beneeded as the first step in any qualityimprovement process. When looking atimplementation, process features of qualitycan prove to be more difficult to define andmeasure than structural aspects of quality(Hayes et al., 2003).

2.3.3 Outcomes

Another way in which quality can bedefined is in terms of outcomes. Outcomescan focus on cognitive or school readinessskills which children can achieve or parentssatisfaction with the service.

Quality in ECCE is often defined in terms ofoutcomes for children, as it is recognisedthat good quality services maximise thepotential of the children for whom itprovides; thus quality can be defined interms of the abilities of children (Munton etal., 1995). Most of the evidence onoutcomes emanates from English languagecountries, particularly the USA (McQuail et

Chapter 2

Quality

24

al., 2002) and a concern with outcomes forchildren is often associated withintervention projects. Peisner-Feinberg etal. (1999:1) note that:

…high quality child care is animportant element in achieving thenational goal of having all childrenready for school.…The current phaseof research shows that this lack ofquality care is having negative effectson children's readiness for school andon their development during the earlyschool years.

The NICHD study of ECCE conducted inthe USA concluded that high qualitychildcare was statistically significant foryoung children's outcomes in terms of theircognitive development and their use oflanguage (NICHD Early Child CareResearch Network, 1996). AnotherAmerican study, The Cost, Quality andOutcomes study focused on the longitudinaloutcomes of childcare for children acrossfour American States. Results of this studyindicate that children who attended higherquality early education programmes hadbetter outcomes at age seven than childrenwho attended a lower quality ECCEprogramme, and that this effect wasparticularly noticeable for children of lesseducated mothers (Piesner-Feinberg et al.,1999).

Research has illustrated links betweenECCE quality and improved socialcompetence, co-operation and fewerbehavioural problems. Greater competencyin communication, social skills,perseverance and children's cognitiveprogress were also evident (McQuail et al.,2002) .

Increasing attention has been paid inrecent years to the contribution of highquality ECCE to the development ofchildren who experience economic andsocial disadvantage (Barnett, 1995).Provision of high quality ECCE services andof high quality early intervention

programmes is seen as having an importantrole to play in fostering the development ofchildren from disadvantaged backgrounds.Research suggests that ECCE programs canproduce significant short-term benefits forchildren in areas such as standardized testsof intelligence and academic ability(Barnett, 1995). In the Irish context,teachers of children who attended the EarlyStart programme identify children ashaving better cognitive and languageabilities than children with no experience ofan ECCE programme, and also see thesechildren as being better prepared for school(Educational Research Centre, 1998).

A review of studies conducted in the USA,which focused on the long-term effects ofchildcare programmes on disadvantageconcluded that high quality childcare hadpositive and persistent impact onachievement, grade retention, specialeducation, high school graduation andsocialization. It suggested that the evidencefor the effect of childcare and earlyeducation on high school graduation anddelinquency was particularly strong(Barnett, 1995).

Similarly, while initial evaluations of theRutland Street project (a State-funded pre-school intervention programme for childrenin inner-city Dublin) did not showfavourable outcomes in terms of children'slinguistic and cognitive development,longitudinal research found more beneficialresults in terms of emotional and socialdevelopment (Kellaghan and Greaney,1993). There is strong evidence to suggestthat high-quality pre-school programmeshave greater positive impacts on thedevelopment of children from familiesliving in poverty (Burchinal, 1999) and thatthe provision of high quality childcare has astronger impact on the outcomes of thosechildren at risk of educationaldisadvantage. Caughy et al. (1994) foundthat while early entry and/or more years inchildcare services produced a larger effecton reading scores than fewer years forchildren from disadvantaged backgrounds,

Chapter 2

Quality

25

conversely, effects were negative forchildren in the highest-income families.Similarly, in a summary of the researchundertaken in childcare in Ireland, theNational Childcare Strategy concluded that:

…the impact of early education isfound in all social groups but isstrongest in children fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. (DJELR,1999:53)

It is recognised that high quality ECCE haspositive benefits for the physical, cognitive,emotional and social development ofchildren with special needs (Coolahan,1998). Quality interventions can reduce theprevalence of certain disabilities and helpto prevent additional problems. In addition,interventions can play a role in supportingfamilies caring for children with specialneeds (CECDE, 2003). The Report of theNational Forum on Early ChildhoodEducation noted that:

…in considering the nature andquality of early educationalexperiences for young children withspecial needs, the views ofparticipants were remarkablycohesive in calling for policies ofinclusiveness and programmes thatwould be relevant to children'sindividual needs and, where possible,delivered in integrated settings.(Coolahan, 1998:94-95)

A focus on outcomes, and in particular ondevelopmental outcomes, as a measure ofquality can be criticised as it relies heavilyon one particular research discipline andparadigm, developmental psychology(McQuail et al., 2002). In light of theimportance of other factors which impactchild development, measurable outcomesmay not be the most important when itcomes to determining quality in ECCEservices.

According to Dahlberg et al. (1999), thespread of definitions of quality from the

private to the public sphere has led to anemphasis on the consumer and consumersatisfaction. In ECCE, this entails theinclusion of parental satisfaction in anydefinition of quality. At the heart of thisdetermination of quality is the view of theindividual customer, seeking personalsatisfaction from a product purchasedwithin the private market; a neo-liberalposition. Quality is determined in relationto the satisfaction of consumers with theproduct.

2.3.4 Customer Satisfaction

A focus on parental satisfaction, on parentsas consumers and on customer satisfactionas a key determinant of quality can beproblematic for several reasons. Consumersmay not have the knowledge to avoid aproduct that is of low quality. Dahlberg etal. (1999) note that there may be problemswith customers expressing themselves, asin the context of social services, users maybe frightened, alienated or members ofweak, vulnerable and disadvantagedgroups. Viewing childcare services in termsof a private market with customersatisfaction determining quality ignores thepossibility that the free market mightcontain sellers whose product is of lowquality or even dangerous (Helburn andBergmann, 2002). It also discounts thepossibility that consumers, especially thosewith low incomes, might be under pressureto settle for low quality products.

2.3.5 Developmentally AppropriatePractice

Another way in which quality in ECCEprovision is characterised is through theconcept of developmentally appropriatepractice. Hayes (1995:12) states that animportant element of quality is the"…developmental appropriateness ofactivities and expectations." The concept ofdevelopmentally appropriate practice isparticularly important in the USA. Thelargest American early childhood

Chapter 2

Quality

26

professional organisation, the NationalAssociation for the Education of YoungChildren (NAEYC) emphasises that qualitymeans developmentally appropriatepractice, i.e. that children's activities areorganised around what is known in termsof how children develop and learn (NAEYC,Accessed at: http://www.naeyc.org/, 1stJuly, 2004).

Developmentally Appropriate Practice is awidely used indicator of quality in carearrangements for young children,"…drawing attention to the ways theirplay and learning is promoted, and theapproach to teaching adopted bycaregivers" (NAEYC, Accessed at:http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/dap3.htm, 16th July, 2004).The NAEYC proposed the followingprinciples of developmentally appropriatepractice:

1. Domains of children's development,physical, social, emotional, andcognitive are closely related.Development in one domaininfluences and is influenced bydevelopment in other domains;

2. Development occurs in a relativelyorderly sequence, with later abilities,skills, and knowledge building onthose already acquired;

3. Development proceeds at varyingrates from child to child as well asunevenly within different areas ofeach child's functioning;

4. Early experiences have bothcumulative and delayed effects onindividual children's development;optimal periods exist for certaintypes of development and learning;

5. Development proceeds in predictabledirections toward greater complexity,organisation, and internalisation;

6. Development and learning occur inand are influenced by multiple socialand cultural contexts;

7. Children are active learners, drawingon direct physical and socialexperience as well as culturallytransmitted knowledge to constructtheir own understandings of theworld around them;

8. Development and learning resultfrom interaction of biologicalmaturation and the environment,which includes both the physical andsocial worlds that children live in;

9. Play is an important vehicle forchildren's social, emotional, andcognitive development, as well as areflection of their development;

10. Development advances whenchildren have opportunities topractice newly acquired skills as wellas when they experience a challengejust beyond the level of their presentmastery;

11. Children demonstrate differentmodes of knowing and learning anddifferent ways of representing whatthey know;

12. Children develop and learn best inthe context of a community wherethey are safe and valued, theirphysical needs are met, and they feelpsychologically secure. (NAEYC,Accessed at:http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/dap3.htm, 1st July,2004)

While it is acknowledged that there areuniversal features of development, much ofwhich has been taken to be universal, is infact, cultural (Woodhead, 1998). Woodheadpresents several examples of the influenceof culture on child development. Forexample, research on adult-childrelationship patterns, relating to learning oflanguage and communication, found thatcare giving styles, through which infantswere encouraged to become partners in"…proto conversations…" facilitated thedevelopment of language in infants(Woodhead, 1998:10). However, cross-cultural studies indicated that caregivers inPapua New Guinea rarely engaged infantsin dyadic communicative exchanges andthose exchanges that did take place weredirective rather than reciprocal. Yet theseinfants also picked up language normally.Woodhead uses this example to highlightthe dangers of interpreting theseobservations made of infants and mothersin the USA as part of a generalised theory

Chapter 2

Quality

27

of language acquisition (or worse still asprescriptive guidance about what style ofcare giving is developmentally appropriate)(Woodhead, 1998:10).

According to Woodhead (1998), the idea ofdevelopmentally appropriate practiceapplies a universalistic, decontextualisedview of what constitutes quality and doesnot take the cultural aspects ofdevelopment into account. Thusdevelopmentally appropriate practice canbe criticised as:

…children from different subcultureslearn in different ways, that thesedifferences may not be adequatelyaccounted for within the standardmodel, and that failure to incorporatethese approaches can inhibit learningby children from minoritysubcultures. (Helburn and Bergmann,2002:76)

2.3.6 Implications for Ireland

The research literature suggests that thereis no universally acceptable definition ofquality; rather quality is shaped by a varietyof factors. It is a relative concept, tied toculture and context and the process ofdefining quality is complex and continuous.It is not possible to determine universalcharacteristics of quality in ECCE; anydefinition of quality needs to encompass avariety of both structural and processvariables.

Research findings on definitions of qualityin ECCE suggest several implications forany process of defining quality in ECCE inIreland. As quality is context specific and islinked to culture, any definition of qualitycannot be simply imported from abroad,but will have to take account of theparticular context of the ECCE sector inIreland and Irish culture. Any definition ofquality that is adopted will need to have abalance between standards that can beapplied to all services, while at the sametime being sufficiently broad to support

diversity amongst services. While structuralfeatures of quality may be easier to defineand measure than process features, bothare important in any conceptualisation ofquality. Some research suggests that overallstructural features may be less importantthan process features of quality. Therelationships between structural andprocess features of quality and childoutcomes is complex and there is no singlefactor that will ensure the provision of ahigh quality service. Researchers agree thatindicators are interdependent; there is nosingle indicator that will have adetermining effect on quality. This suggeststhat a range of both structural and processfeatures must be considered in the searchfor high quality care.

2.4 Stakeholders andQuality

Definitions of quality differ considerablyamong stakeholder groups and acrosscountries (OECD, 2001). (Woodhead, 1998)points out that a range of different peoplehave an interest in the determination ofquality in ECCE services, these includeparents, children, programme managers,teachers, community leaders and childdevelopment experts. As (Moss, 1994:5)asserts:

Defining quality is, therefore, apolitical process. It involves interplay,negotiation and possible conflictbetween, and sometimes among,those stakeholder groups who areincluded and who may have differentperspectives about objectives andpriorities arising from differentvalues and beliefs, interests andneeds.

Farquhar (1990) identified a range ofdifferent perspectives that are influential indetermining quality. These include thechild development perspective, the

Chapter 2

Quality

28

government/regulatory perspective, thesocial services perspective, the parentalperspective, the child perspective, the socialpolicy perspective, the staff perspective andthe cultural perspective. In this section, thenature of quality from the parental, thestaff and the child's perspective will beexamined.

2.4.1 Staff Perspective

Recently, there has been some interest instaff perspectives on quality, and inparticular, on the relationship betweenworking conditions and quality. Currentresearch suggests practitioners are morelikely than other stakeholders (i.e. parentsand children) to view quality in terms ofstructural and process characteristics andchild outcomes. Katz (1993) argues thatthere are three important components tothis perspective; relationships betweencolleagues, relationships betweenpractitioners and parents and therelationship between practitioners andmanagers. In addition, recent research hasexplored the link between quality andworking conditions for staff, and inparticular the link between wages andprovision of a high standard of care.

2.4.2 Parental Perspective

Although the importance of parentalinvolvement and partnership with parentshas long been recognised, until recently,the views of parents were usually notconsidered when it came to determiningquality in ECCE provision.

The parental perspective can be linked tothe idea of the parent as a consumer. Thisview sees the choice by parents of aparticular service as an expression of whatconstitutes quality for that parent, thatquality can be determined in relation to thechoice parents make (Larner and Phillips,1994). In other words, any, or at least mostcare that parents choose is viewed as of anadequate quality (Helburn and Bergmann,

2002). However Larner and Phillips (1994)question the view of quality care asdetermined by parental choice, noting thatparents often have little choice when itcomes to care for their children and that itis more accurate to characterise theselection of childcare provision as a searchprocess, rather than as a matter of choice.This view is supported by research, whichsuggests that as many as 65 per cent ofparents believe they have little choiceamong childcare options (Galinsky et al.,1994). Parents also are constrained by theirown values and practices and the relevanceof the fit of particular childcare options tothe family environment and circumstances(Larner and Phillips, 1994). Larner andPhillips (1994:57) note that:

…to get the quality they want on thedimension that matters most to them(for instance, cultural or languagesimilarity), they must often acceptalternatives that are disappointing inother ways.

Smith and Farquhar (1994) suggest that inderegulated markets, the main ingredientin policy designed to improve quality isparental choice. It is up to the parent tochoose the type of centre that best fits theirvalues and needs, and market forcesdetermine the survival of any particularfacility:

If parents have some knowledge andunderstanding of the things whichmake up good quality care andeducation and they have access tocentres which offer these things, thenthere is no problem with this theory.(Smith and Farquhar, 1994:137)

However, Howes and Stewart (1987, citedin Smith and Farquhar, 1994) suggest thatevidence points to the fact that parents withthe most financial and educationalresources choose the best quality centres.Research in education in the UnitedKingdom (UK) highlights the fact thatparents with access to cultural capital4 have

Chapter 2

Quality

29

the most choice in selecting from amongst arange of schools for their children. In astudy of parental choice of childcarefacilities in Sweden, Prieto et al. (2002)found that relying on parental choiceresulted in pre-school institutions that wereeconomically, socially and culturallysegregated. The authors suggest thatrelying on parents right to choose may leadto the creation of socially and culturallyhomogenous private pre-school facilities.

Parents' views of quality diverge from thoseof other experts in the childcare sector.Though most of the care observed in theCost, Quality and Child Outcomes study inthe USA was categorised as mediocre, thevast majority of parents felt that theirchildren were receiving excellent care(Helburn, 1995). Parents may assignsubstantially higher quality scores to theirchildren's classrooms than trainedobservers (Cryer et al., 2002). Researchsuggests that parents pay relatively littleattention to indicators of quality thatprofessionals suggest they use to screenchildcare options such as ratios andcaregiver training. The most importantaspects of an ECCE program for parents arethe provision of a safe and pleasantenvironment ,which will promote thedevelopment of their child (Larner andPhillips 1994). Parents may also be morelikely to choose childcare that reflects theirown cultural values (Wise and Sanson2003). Evans (1996) suggests that parentsare concerned with four issues whenlooking at the extent to which any servicemeets their needs, the safety of the setting,the degree to which it meets with the needsof the family, the cultural support theservice provides for the child and thedegree to which the service will provide thechild with adequate preparation for school.

The age of the child is an important factorin determining parental views on quality;parents have a tendency to view childcareas a substitute for parental care for childrenunder the age of three, while childcare isseen as providing important educationalopportunities for children over the age ofthree (Larner and Phillips, 1994).

2.4.2.1 Parental Involvement

Parental involvement is seen as animportant aspect of the provision of aquality service:

…parental involvement in theirchildren's early education enhancesparents' understanding ofappropriate educational practicesand improves children's educationaloutcomes. (Mooney et al., 2003:22)

In a summary of the literature concerningparental involvement, Elliott (2002:1) notesthat parental engagement is seen as "…animportant component of and contributorto service quality". Mooney et al. (2003)discuss different models of parentalengagement. Marginal engagement iswhere there is no clear policy for parentalinvolvement and practitioners make noeffort to involve parents. Regarding formalengagement, practitioners utilise strategiessuch as staff-parent meetings, homevisiting, parent-teacher associations,provision of information to parents andrepresentations on managing bodies toinvolve parents in the service. Informalengagement describes informal meetingsbetween practitioners and parents thatoccur when parents drop off and collectchildren. These times are often used byproviders to share information withparents. Participatory engagement involvesparents taking an active part in theprogramme; parents may participate inactivities, outings or celebrations.According to Mooney et al. (2003), thisform of engagement is sometimesformalised in contracts or agreements withparents and is sometimes required by

4 Cultural capital refers to the ideas, practices and artefactsthat are highly valued in our society (Tovey and Share, 2000)such as certain culturally authorised tastes, consumptionpatterns, attributes, skills and awards (Webb et al., 2002).Cultural capital can exist in three forms "…in an embodiedstate, that is in the form of long-lasting dispositions of themind and body; in the objectified state, in the form of culturalgoods; and in the institutionalised state, resulting in thingssuch as educational qualifications…" (Skeggs 1997:7).

Chapter 2

Quality

30

legislation. Managerial engagement refersto cases where parents have responsibilityfor making decisions about the programme,management, staffing and budgets. Theinvolvement of parents in services is seenas having beneficial effects for children;they achieve more, have a more positivesense of self and self-esteem and exhibitfewer discipline problems. (Elliott, 2002).

Though it is recognised that parents shouldhave considerable influence andinvolvement in the provision of care andeducation services, Smith and Farquhar(1994) argue that parental involvement is asignificant challenge for many providers.

2.4.3 Children' Perspective

In the past few years, the value ofconsultations with children as importantstakeholders in the ECCE sector has beenrecognised. The UN Convention on theRights of the Child, ratified by Ireland in1992, raised awareness about children'sright to be consulted and to contribute todecisions that affect their lives. TheNational Children's Strategy "OurChildren, Their Lives" promotes a vision of"An Ireland where children are respectedas young citizens with a valuedcontribution to make and a voice of theirown…" (DHC, 2000:10) and one of thethree national goals of the Strategy is that"children will have a voice." (DHC,2000:11)

A small body of international research hasbeen completed that gives a voice tochildren as stakeholders in determiningquality in ECCE provision. Research hasshown that even young children havestrong opinions about their everyday lives(Langsted, 1994) and children's lives can beimproved by listening to them and takingtheir opinions into account. The childperspective defines quality in relation tochildren's experiences in the setting andincludes children's likes and dislikes andthe enjoyment children get fromparticipating in the programme (Hayes et

al., 2003).

According to Langsted (1994), childrenregarded other children as by far the mostimportant factor in determining the qualityof their childcare provision. Activities, toysand nice staff were also identified ascontributing to quality from the child'sperspective. Consultations with childrencarried out in the UK have also identified arange of factors important in determiningquality for children. Friends, food, a varietyof games and activities including roleplaying, story time, books, outdoor spaceand the opportunity to take responsibilityfor activities and do things for themselveswere all identified by a sample of three andfour-year-old children as important tochildren's enjoyment of the service(Daycare Trust, 1998). Clark and Moss(2001) note that factors such as places tohide, outside space for imaginative games,playing with friends, visiting siblings inother parts of the centre and playing withbikes are important aspects of quality forchildren. Mooney and Blackburn (2003:3)assert that:

Children have clear views about whatmakes for a good childcare serviceand these views relate to theenvironment, the programme ofactivities, characteristics of staff,refreshments, rules and decisionmaking. Their views haveimplications for which indicators ofquality are assessed in childcaresettings.

Mooney and Blackburn (2003:26-27) list arange of quality indicators based on a studyinvestigating children's views on quality.These included:

Children's friendships are encouragedand supported;

Older children can "hang out" withfriends with minimum supervision;

There is a range of activities, which areregularly reviewed and changed ormodified to retain children's interest;

Chapter 2

Quality

31

Activities and space are organised toaccommodate the different needs andinterests of both younger and olderchildren;

Children and staff appear to have a funtime;

Children feel safe in the setting andthere is a clear anti-bullying policy;

Staff facilitate activities/play and avoidinterfering or telling older children whatto do;

Staff avoid raising their voices whenspeaking to children;

Staff show respect for children, arecaring and take time to listen;

In their interactions with children, stafftake account of children's age, maturityand special needs;

Both male and female staff areemployed;

Staff turnover is low to facilitate closerelationships between children andadults;

Children have sufficient indoor andoutdoor space;

Outdoor space is freely available forolder children;

The setting is comfortable with places tobe quite and relax;

Toilets are secure, clean and equippedappropriately;

The setting offers places where childrencan be "out of the eye" of adults;

Children have a choice of food, which isattractive and enjoyable to eat and readyaccess to a drink;

Children are encouraged to participatein decisions about the programme. Theirviews are seen as important and there isevidence that they are taken seriously.

When determining quality from children'sperspective it is important to note thatchildren's perspectives will vary by age,gender and interests but:

…imaginative play, gross motoractivity, arts and craft, books, andgoing on trips are particularlypopular. (Mooney and Blackburn,

2003:24)

2.4.4 Implications for Ireland

Traditionally, the approach to definingquality has been exclusionary, limited to asmall number of stakeholders. It is clearthat there is an increasing awareness in theECCE sector of the importance of therecognition and inclusion of a range ofstakeholder perspectives in anydetermination of quality. In particular, theviews of parents and children are importantin any conceptualisations of quality. Itfollows that the views of these stakeholdersmust be taken into account for discussionsabout quality in Ireland. This implies theadoption of a range of effective strategiesfor the exploration and incorporation ofparents and children's views of quality inany developments in the ECCE sector.

2.5 Measuring Quality

Any measurement of quality depends to alarge extent on the way in which quality isdefined:

A prerequisite of quality assessmentis recognition that there is no singleset of indicators that can prescribe fora quality environment in a once-and-for-all way. (Woodhead, 1998:15)

Additionally process elements of quality aremore difficult to measure than structuralelements of quality:

Williams has argued that thoughmeasurement of the static elements ofquality (structural characteristics) ischaracterised by objectivity andrigor, measurement of the dynamicelements (process) is characterised byan intuitive, subjective approach.(Hayes et al., 2003:233)

Hayes et al. (2003) note that there is

Chapter 2

Quality

32

currently a great deal of interest indeveloping measures of quality, andparticularly, instruments that canaccurately measure process quality.

Any measure of quality is context-specific,based on a consensus as to what thecontent and aims of ECCE are, and thusmeasuring tools are often unsuitable fortransfer from one context to another. Thereare two distinctive approaches tomeasuring quality (Mooney et al., 2003),one of which uses standardised observationscales and external research assessments ofeffectiveness. The other involves allstakeholders in the development of qualityobjectives for a particular service anddevelops in conjunction with thesestakeholders mechanisms for theevaluation of these objectives. Observationscales and external research instrumentsusually result in the production ofquantitative data while the development ofobjectives and the evaluation of a service inrelation to these objectives represent amore qualitative approach to measuringquality. Both of these are examined in turn.

2.5.1 The Early ChildhoodEnvironment Rating Scale

Observation scales are often used in themeasurement of elements of both structuraland process quality. One of the best knownobservational tools for the measurement ofquality is the ECERS, which was developedin the USA (Harms and Clifford, 1980),revised in 1998 (Harms et al., 1998). The1980 version of the ECERS is a 37-iteminstrument that focuses on whetherprograms include developmentallyappropriate materials, activities, andinteractions over seven dimensions:

1. Personal care;2. Furnishings and display for children; 3. Language-reasoning experiences;4. Fine and gross motor activities;5. Creative activities;6. Social development and 7. Adult needs (Sakai et al., 2003).

The ECERS is scored on a 7-point scale(7=excellent, 5=good, 3=minimallyadequate and 1=inadequate care). Even-number scores indicate that some of therequirements of the higher rating are met,but others are not (e.g., a score of 2indicates that the centre is better than ascore of 1 and meets some but not all therequirements for a score of 3). The revisededition of the ECERS (ECERS-R),published in 1998, looks at 43 items overseven slightly different dimensions:

1. Personal care routines;2. Space and furnishings; 3. Language reasoning;4. Activities;5. Programme structure; 6. Interaction and;7. Parents and staff.

Scoring is once again on theaforementioned 7-point scale. Howeverunlike the original ECERS, a slightlydifferent scoring convention is used foreven-number scores. For the ECERS-R,even number scores indicate that half ormore (but not all) of the requirements ofthe higher rating are met. The ECERS hasalso been adapted for use with infants andtoddlers (Infant/Toddler EnvironmentRating Scale (ITERS) (Harms and Clifford,1990) and in the family day careenvironment (Family Day Care Rating Scale(FDCRS) (Harms and Clifford, 1989). In2003, an amended version of ECERS, theECERS-Extension (ECERS-E), waspublished (Sylva, et al., 2003). Thissupplements the ECERS-R by the additionof four new sub-scales, namely Literacy,Mathematics, Science and Diversity,analysed under 18 items. It employs thesame scoring convention as the ECERS-R.

The ECERS has been criticised on severalfronts, including the fact that it fails to takeaccount of key components of culturallysensitive practice, such as communicatingwith families in their home language (Sakaiet al., 2003). The ECERS also concentrateslargely on the childcare environment and ahigh standard of quality in the childcare

Chapter 2

Quality

33

environment does not necessarilyguarantee high quality interactions andexperiences for the child.

The CIS provides an observation of thebehaviour of caregivers in their interactionswith children. It consists of 26 items thatare rated on a 4-point scale. Included onthe scale are items such as the caregiverspeaking warmly to the children, caregiverbeing critical of the children, caregiverlistening attentively when children speak tohim/her, caregiver seems distant ordetached from children and caregiverseems to enjoy the children. Each item isscored as "not at all" (0 per cent) = 1;"somewhat" (1-30 per cent) = 2; "quite abit" (about 50 per cent) = 3; "very much"(60-100 per cent) = 4, upon completion ofan observation of several hours by a trainedobserver. Completion of the scale results inone of four subscale scores, positiveinteraction, punitiveness, permissivenessand detachment (Arnett, 1989).

The International Association for theEvaluation of Educational Achievement(IEA) Pre-primary Project utilised timesampling procedures in the identificationand measurement of elements of processquality (Hayes et al., 2003). The timesampling procedures were designed tocollect quantitative descriptions ofbehaviour. The observations yielded countsof child behaviours such as verbalisations,interactions with other children andinteractions with adults. Adult behaviourssuch as teaching and child managementwere also recorded. These counts areexpressed as a percentage of totalobservations made and can be used toprovide a quantitative measure of severalaspects of quality in ECCE settings.

Another approach to measuring qualityinvolved the participation of allstakeholders in specifying the componentsof high quality provision and the evaluationof the service provision on the basis ofthese components. This method ofmeasuring quality can be found in

Scandinavia and in some regions ofNorthern Italy. Mooney et al. (2003:9)state that this approach to measuringquality is found where "…the structuralconditions of quality are already inplace…".

2.5.2 Implications for Ireland

Two main approaches emerged from theresearch literature regarding measuringaspects of quality in ECCE; standardisedobservation scales and the evaluation ofaspects of the service based on thedetermination of quality by a range ofstakeholders. The first approach isquantitative while the second is morequalitative in orientation. The adoption ofany instrument for the measurement ofquality is dependent on the way in whichquality is defined and the key concernsregarding the measurement of quality.While structural variables are more easilymeasured than the process elements ofquality, an examination of structuralfeatures will present a limited picture ofquality unless process features are alsoincluded. This highlights the importance ofthe adoption of mechanisms for measuringquality that are capable of capturing bothstructural and process features of quality.

2.6 Supporting Quality

Different perspectives on measuring qualityare reflected in different approaches toregulation and quality assurance (Mooneyet al., 2003). Both evaluations andaccreditation are important aspects ofquality assurance (Mooney et al., 2003).Wangmann (1992) distinguishes betweenprogramme evaluation and programmeaccreditation:

Like accreditation, programevaluation monitors quality in theprogram, usually as a result of self-evaluation, using quantitative and

Chapter 2

Quality

34

objective indicators as measures ofquality. The chief difference betweenprogram evaluation and programaccreditation is that in the latter,recognition is given to thoseprograms that substantially complywith the established criteria.(Wangmann, 1992:4)

According to Podmore et al. (2000), self-assessment or self-evaluations andaccreditations processes follow a similarcycle. Initially a baseline evaluation or aperiod of reflection takes place, whereproviders look at a specific set of topics orquestions. These results are studied andevaluative conclusions are formed. Anaction plan is then developed andimplemented, (sometimes with the aid ofexternal agencies). The support providedfor this process will vary. Following anadditional period of self-reflection orevaluation, the service will decide if it isready to be assessed by an external trainedvalidator. According to Podmore et al.(2000), if accreditation is the final goal,then centres will either be accredited ornot. Accreditation will usually last for aspecific pre-determined time period andmay also lapse if there are significantchanges in the service e.g. when the personresponsible for the service leaves.According to Podmore et al. (2000:41)

Overall, it appears that voluntaryadopted evaluation and accreditationprocesses may lead to someimprovements. However, they maynot necessarily be associated withvery high quality.

While all involved in the ECCE sectorrecognise the importance of establishingand measuring quality in the early years,there are several different approaches thatcan be taken when it comes to qualityassurance. Some of the main approachestaken are outlined below.

2.6.1 Regulation

An important feature of childcare quality isthe regulatory context. Regulations canaddress issues such as child health andsafety, group size, allowable number ofinfants, number of children per adult,discipline etc. (Kontos et al., 1995).Regulation is one mechanism forpromoting and maintaining quality inECCE provision. Mooney et al. (2003:27)suggest that:

…where quality is variable and thereis little publicly funded provision,standardisation, regulations andenforcement may be required toensure quality of an acceptablestandard..

However, regulations are not sufficient toassure quality and such regulations must becomplemented by external supports toensure services meet these requirements.(CECDE, 2003:51). As French (2000:12)asserts:

Quality is no longer viewed as onestandard of excellence identified forall children in all services, but rathera set of core criteria towards whichservices may progress and againstwhich their progress may bemeasured.

This can be accomplished through theaforementioned processes of accreditationor self-evaluation.

2.6.1.1 Accreditation

Accreditation is defined by Doherty-Derkowski (1994:113) as:

…a process by which a representativebody, recognised by both the servicecommunity and the community ingeneral, establishes standards forservices. The standards are above theminimum regulatory requirements ofthe government. Programs can apply

Chapter 2

Quality

35

on a voluntary basis for evaluationagainst the standards and if found tomeet or surpass them, are granted acertificate which recognises this fact.

In many cases, accreditation involvesproviders evaluating their services in termsof standards set by a professionalorganisation. Due to the fact thataccreditation is usually voluntary, theparticipation rates can be low, for example,less than ten per cent of childcare centresin the USA are accredited by the NAEYC(Mooney et al., 2003:14). Whenaccreditation is linked to public funding orother benefits, participation is muchhigher. The extent to which quality issupported by accreditation also depends onthe stringency of the validation process.

2.6.1.2 Self-evaluation

Self-evaluation is an increasinglyimportant aspect of quality assurancein many countries. … Self-evaluationencourages reflective practice and thepossibility of change. (Mooney et al.,2003:15)

Self-evaluation can take several forms, oneof which is where providers, sometimesaided by parents and children, evaluatetheir service against a set of quality criteria.

One example of self-evaluation is theEffective Early Learning (EEL) Project inthe UK (Pascal, n.d., Accessed at:http://www.ecdu.govt.nz/publications/convention/Pascal.pdf, 1st July, 2004). Thisproject is based upon the theoreticalposition that quality is a value-laden,context-specific concept, influenced bycultural norms and societal values. Theproject aims to capture the essence ofquality as reflected in practice. One of thekey aims of this project is to facilitatequality evaluation and improvement in adiverse range of settings in which childrenare being educated and cared for. This isachieved through the implementation of aprocess of externally validated self-

evaluation, which leads directly to actionplanning and improvement. Practitionershave responsibility for most of theevaluation and improvement process, butare provided with the support andvalidation of an EEL External Adviser atkey points during the process.

Using the EEL framework, quality isevaluated by taking the participantsthrough a systematic and rigorous fourstage process of "Evaluation andImprovement" which takes between nineand twelve months to complete. In Stage 1,"Evaluation", researchers and participantsincluding staff, parents and children worktogether to document and evaluate thequality of early learning within the setting.In Stage 2, "Action Planning", participantsmeet together to identify priorities foraction and to generate an Action Plan. InStage 3 "Improvement", the Action Plan toimprove the quality of provision isimplemented and in Stage 4 "Reflection",participants are encouraged to reflect uponthe evaluation and development processand to review the impact of the Action Planin the light of their experience. There areten dimensions of quality:

1. Aims and objectives;2. Curriculum/learning experiences; 3. Learning and teaching styles;4. Planning, Assessment and record

keeping;5. Ratio of trained staff;6. Physical environment; 7. Relationships and interaction; 8. Equal opportunities;9. Parental involvement and home and

community liaison and;10. Monitoring and evaluation (Pascal

and Bertram, 1993, cited in Alcock,1996).

2.6.2 Pedagogical Documentation

Another approach to quality improvementhas been developed in Reggio Emilia inItaly. As Mooney et al. (2003:16) describe:

Rather than using observational

Chapter 2

Quality

36

scales or a set of quality indicatorsfor self-evaluation, staff continuallyreview and reflect on their ownpractice and theories of learningusing documentation of the individualchild, the group and the work of thecentre.

The Reggio Emilia approach utilisespedagogical documentation as a tool ofquality improvement. Katz and Chard(1996) draw a distinction betweendocumentation, in the forms of observationof children and extensive record keeping,and the pedagogical documentation ofReggio Emilia. They suggest thatdocumentation in Reggio Emilia focusesmore intensively on children's experience,memories, thoughts, and ideas in thecourse of their work. The pedagogicaldocumentation of Reggio Emilia involvesthe documentation of samples of children'swork at several different stages ofcompletion. This illustrates not only thefinal product but also the way in which thechild planned, carried out and completedthe work.

Katz and Chard (1996) propose that thisapproach to the documentation ofchildren's work and ideas contributes to thequality of an ECCE program in severalways. High quality documentation has thepotential to enhance the child's learning.Preparing and displaying documentaries ofthe children's experience and effort canprovide children with the tools to reflect ontheir own process of learning. This processleads to a clarification, deepening andstrengthening of their new understanding(Katz and Chard, 1996:2). Careful attentionto documenting children's learning and theproduction of attractive documentarydisplays coveys to children the messagethat their efforts, intentions, and ideas aretaken seriously:

Taking children's work seriously inthis way encourages in them thedisposition to approach their workresponsibly, with energy and

commitment, showing both delightand satisfaction in the processes andthe results. (Katz and Chard, 1996:2)

Pedagogical documentation provides amechanism for the ongoing planning andevaluation of work undertaken in the ECCEinstitution. Documentation also facilitatesthe process of parental engagement inECCE settings. As Malaguzzi (1993:64)noted, documentation:

…introduces parents to a quality ofknowing that tangibly changes theirexpectations. They re-examine theirassumptions about their parentingroles and their views about theexperience their children are living,and take a new and more inquisitiveapproach toward the whole schoolexperience.

In learning about the work in which theirchildren are engaged, parents can activelycontribute with insights from home andpractical help. Documentation alsofacilitates the building of linkages betweenthe home and the ECCE institution andbetween parents and practitioners.

2.6.3 Implications for Ireland

There are a variety of different approachesto support quality that can be adopted.These include State regulations, which areusually based on the minimum standardsfor ensuring the health and safety of thoseinvolved in the service. Evaluation andaccreditation schemes usually involvestandards, which tend to be more stringentand comprehensive than those included ingovernment regulations. Researchliterature suggests that the adoption ofevaluation or accreditation as an approachto supporting quality can have positiveeffects on the standard of care andeducation provided. It is also suggested bysome that in countries where the provisionof ECCE is dependent on the free market,evaluation and accreditation mechanisms

Chapter 2

Quality

37

are more likely to be adopted in an effort toimprove the quality of service provision.

2.7 Critique of the"Discourse of Quality"

Dahlberg et al., (1999) use a post-modernperspective to question the utility of theterm quality and its dominance in the fieldof ECCE, presenting a critique on what theyterm the "discourse of quality" thatdominates this sector. While the authors donot question the concerns that have led tointerest in defining, measuring andsupporting quality, they suggest that theconcept of quality itself is problematic. AsTait (2000:231) notes:

In recent years, this notion hasextended beyond the simple status ofa mere generalised signifier - looselyrepresenting the reasonable desire toprovide the best care possible for thechildren - to constitute instead areified and totalised discursiveframework.

The argument put forward by Dahlberg etal. (1999) is an attempt to problematise thetheoretical underpinnings of the discourseof quality. They note that quality is asocially constructed concept with roots inthe project of modernity and in particularthe discipline of developmental psychology.They suggest quality is a normalisingconcept that governs the way we see, thinkand talk about ECCE. The centrality ofdevelopmental psychology inconceptualisations of quality can be seen inthe way in which developmentalpsychologists have played a lead role in thework on quality, most notably in the waysin which quality is defined, thedevelopment of mechanisms for themeasurement of quality and work onquality standards. This means that qualityis related to particular forms of governmentand particular operations of power(Dahlberg et al. use Foucault's

conceptualisation of power in theiranalysis). Developmental psychology likeall modernist disciplines is "…prompted byconcerns to classify, measure andregulate…" (Dahlberg et al., 1999:35) andhas played an influential role in the way inwhich childhood and early childhoodinstitutions are viewed. According to theseauthors:

Categories and concepts used to talkabout early childhood care andeducation become productivethemselves of how we understand thechild, they shape our understandingboth of what is desirable and what ispossible in early childhoodinstitutions. (Dahlberg et al., 1999:39)

Hence, it is suggested that developmentalpsychology produces (in Foucault's terms) aparticular "regime of truth", organising oureveryday experience of the world,governing our ideas, thoughts and action,determining what can be said and not said,what we consider normal or not normal,appropriate or inappropriate (Moss, 2001).Categories and concepts begin to functionlike true models of reality and areinfluential in shaping policies, practicesand relationships. A key point about thesecategories and concepts is that they are notvalue free but are imbued with power.

The authors are critical of bothdevelopmental psychology and thediscourse of quality as they adopt adecontextualised approach (or at best usecontext as an explanatory variable),separating the child and the institutionfrom concrete experiences, everyday life,the complexities of culture and theimportance of situation. This reflects Bloch(1992), who points out that the dominationover the course of the twentieth century ofpsychological and biological childdevelopment perspectives in ECCE resultedin a lack of recognition or acceptance ofalternative theoretical and methodologicalperspectives.

Chapter 2

Quality

38

Dahlberg et al. (1999) introduce analternative conceptual framework, a post-modern approach to the "discourse ofquality", which they term the "discourse ofmeaning making". Farquhar (1999) viewsthis framework as more of a very strongcritique of the dominant approach than afully developed alternative approach. Thediscourse of meaning making:

…speaks first and foremost aboutconstructing and deepeningunderstanding of the early childhoodinstitution and its projects, inparticular the pedagogical work - tomake meaning of what is going on.(Dahlberg et al., 1999:106)

Consequently meaning making is aboutdeepening our understanding of what isgoing on in early childhood programmes,making judgments about the value of whatgoes on and possibly seeking someagreement with others about thesejudgments. This approach explicitlyincorporates both moral and politicalchoices and recognises ethical andphilosophical positions and judgements ofvalue.

Several examples of the discourse ofmeaning making are mentioned byDahlberg et al. (1999) including theStockholm project (which is informedheavily by the ideas and practices of ReggioEmilia), the practice of pedagogicaldocumentation and thinking on minoritystatus in early childhood education withreference to the aboriginal peoples ofCanada. The project Early ChildhoodPedagogy in a Changing World wasestablished in 1993 in a district of

Stockholm and was based on the ReggioEmilia approach. The project was praxis5

orientated (Lind, 1998) and involvedteachers, parents, children and politiciansand administrators from the localcommunity (Dahlberg, 2000). Practitionersadopted a social constructionist perspectiverecognising the operation of power inherentin processes of representation. Importantpedagogical tools associated with thisapproach include the process ofpedagogical documentation, the role ofspecialist staff such as atelierista6 andpedagogista7 and the time built into theworking week for the practitioner toanalyse, debate and reflect on pedagogicalpractice.

Even with the adoption of a discourse ofmeaning making, Dahlberg et al. (1999)acknowledge that the power andattractiveness of the discourse of qualitywill be slow to diminish and suggest thatthere is nothing to prevent the adoption ofa discourse of meaning making alongsidethe discourse of quality by policy makersand practitioners:

We recognise that the discourse ofquality might be particularly usefulfor certain highly technical issues,perhaps for example food hygiene orbuilding standards to ensure thephysical safety of young children inearly childhood institutions.(Dahlberg et al., 1999:119)

The critique of the discourse of quality isvaluable, as it has generated research thatis strengthening understanding of whatconstitutes quality in early childhood careand education provision for young children.

2.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be suggested that theissue of determining quality is complex.Quality is a relative, value-based concept,determined and influenced by contextualfactors, as well as the discipline of

5 Praxis is defined as the translation of an idea into action; aconcrete theory put into practice.

6 An atelierista is an art teacher who is trained in the visualarts and works closely with other teachers and the children.

7 A pedagogista is a specialist in the early years who isavailable to centre staff for consultation, planning, andassistance with the management of individual children. Thepedagogista not only develops relationships with centre staff,families, and children but also engages in problem solvingwith staff, exploring new options and reflecting on what isgoing on in the centre.

Chapter 2

Quality

39

developmental psychology. Ideas aboutwhat constitutes quality may vary fromcountry to country, from social group tosocial group and from researcher toresearcher. The way in which quality isdefined will impact on the measurementinstruments used and on what will beidentified as appropriate supportstructures. What is defined as quality willalso change over time. Perhaps as Hayes(2002c) suggests, when we think of quality,we should think in terms of a never-endingjourney where quality is constantlydiscussed, debated and created.

40

Norway

Terms UsedBarnehage Kindergarten/ Pre-school

setting

Barnehager Kindergartens/Pre-schoolsettings

Pedagogiske Ledere Pre-school Teacher

Storting Nordic Parliament

Styrere Head Teacher

3.1 Introduction

Quality in ECCE has been a primaryconcern in Norway for more than a decade.In a White Paper to the parliament in 1987,the central aims were to improve bothaccess and quality in the barnehager8

(OECD, 1998a). In general, researchconcludes that the Norwegian barnehagerhave high quality services. According to theOECD (1998a:23) background report:

In Norway the regulations oneducated staff, the Framework Planand the emphasising of closecooperation with the parents are thebasis for quality.

3.2 Context for quality

3.2.1 Philosophy

Section 1 of the Day Care Institutions Actstates that the first purpose of the ECCEinstitutions is:

…to provide children of under schoolage with sound opportunities fordevelopment and activity in close

8 Barnehage is the direct translation of the German wordKindergarten. This word is a common term for different typesof ECCE under the legislation of the Norwegian Day CareInstitution Act, covering the age group 0 - 5 years.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3

Norway

41

3.2.3 Funding

The State provides grants for theestablishment and operation of public aswell as private day care institutions, and allinstitutions are eligible for funding subjectto the approval of the municipalauthorities. Therefore, the main form ofsubsidy for childcare costs in Norway is asupply funding strategy, though one parentof children aged between birth and 12months receive 80 per cent of their salaryto stay at home with the child. In addition,parents of children aged between 12 and 36months receive a flat rate benefit if they donot use a publicly funded service, to beused either to support a stay at homeparent or as a contribution to the cost ofprivate childcare arrangements (Candappaet al., 2003).

The Norwegian Storting (the NationalParliament) has approved the sharing ofthe running costs for barnehager at 40 percent, 30 per cent and 30 per cent, dividedamong State funding, funding frommunicipalities and parental fees. However,in practice, parents' fees vary frommunicipality to municipality. In somemunicipalities, the fees are the same for allchildren; in other municipalities they varywith the parents' income. Many parents paymore than 30 per cent of costs, especially inprivately owned barnehager. Thecontribution from the State andmunicipalities does not always match theStorting's intention. On average,municipalities pay 27.9 per cent of the totalrunning costs in public institutions ownedby the municipalities, but only 8.2 per centof total running costs in privateinstitutions. A national maximum pricescheme for participation in day careprogrammes has been adopted and will beintroduced over a period or time. Thegovernment has also agreed to a newfunding formula to be put in place by 2005,whereby government funding forbarnehager will be increased to 50 per cent(Eknes, 2000).

understanding and collaborationwith the children's homes. Day careinstitutions shall assist in giving thechildren an upbringing that accordswith Christian values. (Ministry ofChildren and Family Affairs, 2004)

ECCE is viewed as essential for good childdevelopment regardless of the employmentstatus of the mother (Clearinghouse, March2003b). Childhood as a life-phase has ahigh intrinsic value, and children's own freetime, own culture and play arefundamentally important (Ministry ofChildren and Family Affairs, 2004). ECCEis therefore viewed as part of the familypolicy in Norway (Alvestad andSamuelsson, 1999). The provision of ECCEin Norway has two main aims; to make itpossible for parents with small children towork outside the home and to contribute toequality between men and women.

3.2.2 Policy

The Ministry for Children and FamilyAffairs has the primary responsibility forpolicy making regarding ECCE but theresponsibility for delivery lies with localauthorities (OECD, 1998a).

Administrative responsibility for ECCEservices in Norway lies with the Ministryfor Children and Family Affairs (OECD,1998a). Currently there is an ongoingdebate about whether or not administrativeresponsibility for childcare should betransferred to the Ministry of Church,Education and Research Affairs, which isresponsible for education and schools. Thisdebate was prompted by the developmentof the first national curriculum forchildcare institutions, which highlightedthe educational function of childcareinstitutions (barnehager) and tied themmore closely with the education system(Choi, 2003). However, the Ministry forChildren and Family Affairs believes thatbarnehager should act as an interface withfamilies, not with the educational system.

Chapter 3

Norway

42

public and 53 per cent private. The privateinstitutions were on average smaller thanthe public institutions. Private barnehageraccommodated 42 per cent of the childrenand 58 per cent of the children were inpublic barnehager.

In July 2003, each municipality becameofficially responsible for administering ajoint application process for admission toits public and private day care facilities andfor ensuring that its day care institutionscan meet local enrolment needs.

3.3 Defining Quality

3.3.1 Regulations

There is a national legislative frameworkfor barnehager provided for by theBarnehager Act (1995). This act sets downsome regulations regarding the operation ofbarnehager. For example, under the Act,both the styrere9 and the pedagogiskeledere10 must be educated pre-schoolteachers and there must be one educatedpre-school teacher per 14-18 children overthe age of three and per 7-9 children underthe age of three. The regulations only coverfamily day care providers that are part of anauthorised family day care system. Infamily day care, there must be one pre-school teacher per 30 children, and nomore than five children over the age ofthree in each family day care home.

The Barnehager Act gives considerablediscretion to municipalities and institutionsin terms of structural features of qualitysuch as staff ratios (OECD, 1999b). UnderSection 17 of the Act, the total number ofpersonnel must be sufficient to enable allstaff to carry out satisfactory educationalactivity. This demand allows the owner of

The government has provided grant aid forthose building new ECCE centres (Eknes,2000). In July 2003, each municipalitybecame officially responsible foradministering a joint application processfor admission to its public and private daycare facilities and for ensuring that its daycare institutions could meet localenrolment needs. In 1997, the compulsoryschool age was lowered from seven to sixyears (OECD, 1998a), meaning thatchildcare institutions now provide care andeducation for children under the age of six.

During the 1980s and the beginning of the1990s, government policy gave priority inaccess to children over the age of three, bysubsidising places for these children at aproportionately higher level than places forchildren under the age of three (OECD,1998a). This meant that access variedamong age groups, with older childrenmore likely to attend childcare institutionsand to attend for longer periods of time.

The Norwegian government is movingtowards a position of universal provision.According to the OECD report (OECD,1998a), one goal set by the Norwegiangovernment it that all children whoseparents wish it should have a place inbarnehage, either on a full time or parttime basis, by the year 2000 (OECD,1998a). By 2002, 69% of children betweenthe ages of one and five attendedKindergarten (Statistics Norway, 2003).

3.2.4 Delivery Strategies

In Norway, both public and privateinstitutions provide day care. Barnehagervary considerably in terms of ownership,management and funding. Some are ownedand managed by a local authority whileothers are privately owned. Privatebarnehager are managed in a variety ofways by parent groups, non-profitorganisations, for-profit businesses etc.According to the OECD (1998a) report,there were there were 6,240 barnehager inNorway in 1997, 47 per cent of these were

9 Styrer can be roughly translated as headteacher. A styrer isan educated pre-school teacher who is responsible for the day-to-day management of the barnehage.

10 A Pedagogisk leder is an educated pre-school teacher withresponsibility for a group of children in a barnehager.

Chapter 3

Norway

43

the barnehager to relate staff numbers tothe needs of the children attending.Therefore, the adult-child ratio may bedifferent from barnehager to barnehager,depending on the needs of the childrenattending.

3.3.2 Curriculum

The Framework Plan is a nationalcurriculum for all barnehager. It wasintroduced in 1996 for both public andprivate barnehager (OECD, 1998a). Allbarnehager are obliged to follow the planunder the Act. This Framework Plan isbased on the assumption that thebarnehager are part of the educationsystem (Chio, 2003) and view education inthe early years as an important foundationfor life long learning. The frameworkdiscusses methods for the teacher to usewhen working with children and how theteachers can use the Framework Plan intheir own planning and evaluation(Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999). TheNorwegian framework gives teachers:

…a detailed framework for their workwith suggestions for content, methodsto be used, and expected outcomes.(Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999:5)

There are three main parts to theframework (Alvestad and Samuelsson,1999). Part one states the objectives andbasic principles underlying the workcarried out in the barnehager. Part twofocuses on content and areas of experienceand learning, including the FrameworkPlan:

Totality and interpretations;

Social interaction;

Play and day to day activities;

Culture and curriculum and;

Sami language and culture.

Part three focuses on implementing theplan and includes planning,implementation and evaluation,

responsibility, forms of operation andcollaboration and development of day careinstitutions.

Included in the Framework Plan are fivesubject areas, which all pre-school childrenshould experience:

1. Society, religion and ethics; 2. Aesthetic subjects;3. Language, text and communication; 4. Nature, environment and technology

and; 5. Physical activity and health (OECD,

1999b:17).

The barnehager have a high degree offreedom within the Framework Plan. Theplan does not impose detailed guidelinesfor the activity or prevent freedom,adaptations and variation at the local level.For example, programmes from abroadsuch as the Italian Reggio Emilia, theAmerican High/Scope and the Dutch MarteMeo are used in some barnehager.

Individual barnehager decide how to applythe Framework Plan, through theproduction of an annual plan (OECD,1999b). A concrete evaluation programmemust form part of the annual plan in eachbarnehage. The annual plan defines what isto be evaluated, the criteria for evaluation,how information is to be compiled, whoshall evaluate and when, and how the basisfor evaluation is to be presented anddiscussed.

3.3.3 Staff Training

The Framework Plan for Day CareInstitutions - A Brief Presentation statesthat:

The day care institution's mostimportant resource is the peopleworking there. (Ministry of Childrenand Family Affairs, 2004:41)

One of the most important factors inachieving high quality barnehager is a

Chapter 3

Norway

44

well-educated staff (OECD, 1998a:28). TheBarnehager Act (sections 16 and 17) statesthat styrere and pedagogiske ledere mustbe educated pre-school teachers. InNorway, just over a third of the ECCEworkforce are trained pedagogues(Kosiander and Reigstad, 2002). There is ashortage of qualified pre-school teachersand in 1997, 19 per cent of the personsemployed as styrere and pedagogiskeledere worked with dispensation from theeducational requirements. There are nodemands in terms of the educationalqualifications of pre-school assistants.

There is one benchmark qualification inNorway for practitioners working in theECCE field and all pre-school teacherscomplete a three year educationalprogramme (Alcock, 1996). Admission topre-school teacher education normallyrequires the completion of three years ofstudy at upper secondary level. Thisqualification includes both a theoreticaland practical perspective (Kosiander andReigstad, 2002). Students undertakepedagogical/didactic theory and practicaltraining, relevant subject and practicaltraining and in-depth study in the thirdyear of study.

Assistants undertake an upper second levelvocational qualification. Thisapprenticeship model normally consists oftwo years of school and two years ofapprenticeship which may take place in abarnehager (OECD, 1998a). In Norway,much work is currently being done torecruit minority groups to the ECCEprofessions (Rhedding-Jones, 2002). Forexample, at the beginning of 2001 theMinistry of Children and Family Affairslaunched a programme on how to recruitmore men into ECCE (Kosiander andReigstad, 2000).

3.3.4 Professional Development

The Framework Plan states that:

The individual day care institutionowner should therefore draw up long-term training plans for his/heremployees. Development work,refresher training and guidanceshould be planned for a period ofseveral years. (Ministry of Childrenand Family Affairs, 2004).

Since 1990, funds have been given foreducational/pedagogical development workin all counties. From 1995, countygovernors were required to establishcourses for the barnehager staff aboutusing the plan and to date, many have doneso in collaboration with the colleges forpre-school teacher training. Decentralisedpre-school teacher education has also beenorganised in several locations in recentyears.

3.3.5 Parents

Parental involvement is seen as one aspectof quality in ECCE in Norway. The 1995Barnehager Act stipulates that eachbarnehager must have a parent's counciland a co-ordinating committee comprisingrepresentatives of parents, staff andowners. The parents' council promotes theparents' shared interests and has the rightto express an opinion in matters of parents'relationship to the barnehager. The co-ordinating committee formulates an annualplan for the educational activity based onthe Framework Plan and local guidelines:

Questions related to basic views oneducation, content and prioritiesshould also be discussed by theparents' council and by the co-ordinating committee as part of thework on the annual plan. (OECD,1998a:15)

This means that parents have significantinfluence on the content of thebarnehager's programme.

Chapter 3

Norway

45

3.3.6 White Paper 1999-2000

In the White Paper on ECCE policy, it wasproposed that a quality programme belaunched in 2001-2003 within the ECCEsector. As Kosiander and Reigstad(2000:94) state:

The objective of this programme isthat each barnehager will operate asystem to maintain and developquality by the end of 2003.

There are three main components to thisprogramme:

A barnehager for all children,which includes children with specialneeds (from ethnic and culturalminorities and children with additionalneeds);

Provision of a flexible institutionbased on children's needs and parentaldemands. This means that ECCEservices must give children influenceand encourage their participationalongside developing an institutionalprogram that takes into account parents'working hours, studies and income;

Competent personnel means havingenough educated personnel, bothlicensed teachers and assistants, to meetthe new demands within the ECCEsector in the future (Kosiander andReigstad, 2000:94).

3.4 Measuring Quality

3.4.1 Municipalities

According to section 10 of the BarnehagerAct, municipalities maintain the localsupervision of the barnehager and allbarnehager must be approved by localauthorities. Local authorities set standardsin terms of structural issues, such as staffratios. The local authority is responsible forthe implementation of the Framework Planin individual barnehager and localauthorities may ask for the annual plansfrom the barnehager in connection with

their supervision. The overall responsibilityfor building and operation of day careinstitutions lies with the municipalauthorities, who are also in charge ofmonitoring compliance with existinglegislation.

3.4.2 Self-evaluation

The Framework Plan requires that aconcrete, explicit evaluation programme beformulated and implemented as part of theannual work plan of each institution. TheOECD Country note for Norway states that:

The concept of evaluation containedin the Framework Plan forBarnehager is distinctive, complexand challenging. It emphasisesobservation and documentation,analysis and interpretation,contemplation and self-reflection, andchildren's involvement. (OECD,1999b:35)

The OECD report noted that somebarnehager have put explicit evaluationplans in place which emphasise buildinggroup confidence, social competence andsecuring the quality of personalrelationships (OECD, 1999b:35).

3.5 Supporting Quality

3.5.1 Research on Quality

Statistics Norway11 gathers informationannually regarding dimensions of quality,such as the composition of the staff and thenumber of children with special needs.These statistics are presented in thepublication Child Care Institutions inDecember of each year. Statistics Norwayalso carries out a bi-annual survey ofparental fees in barnehager operated or

11 Statistics Norway is responsible for the official statistics ofNorway (OECD, 1998a) and is the principal agent for thecollection of official statistics on the ECEC sector (OECD,1999b).

Chapter 3

Norway

46

part-financed by the municipalities.Another function of Statistics Norway is tocollate and provide information from theannual financial statements submitted tothe Ministry by private barnehager. TheOECD background report notes that "…theStorting pay a lot of interest in thesefigures." (OECD, 1998a:41)

The Ministry has also initiated other piecesof research regarding barnehage. The mainpurpose of this research is two fold; togather information for the purposes ofpolicy making and to investigate the level ofsuccess of various initiatives.

The Ministry of Children and Family Affairshas funded two projects concerned withquality in ECCE entitled "Quality in DayCare Institutions and the Child's Value"and "The Values of the Barnehager - AnAnalysis of Knowledge". Both of thesestudies were carried out by the NationalInstitute of Public Health. The reportQuality in Day Care institutions and theChild's Value (OECD, 1998a:41) highlightsthe fact that quality is related both tostructure and values. Structural definitionsof quality may lack criteria that are directlyrelated to children's development andhealth, job satisfaction, educational ideasand the parents' satisfaction with thequality of service provided. The summaryand conclusions in the report suggest thatthe challenge for the future is to keep anddevelop the well-established barnehagertradition:

To manage this, the staff mustidentify with all aspects of the qualityin their local barnehage in closecollaboration with the parents andauthorities. A broad involvement anddiscussion about quality inbarnehager is an important premise.(OECD, 1998a:42)

The report The Child's Value and theValues of the Barnehager - An Analysis ofKnowledge (OECD, 1998a:42) focuses ondifferent pieces of research concerning

children and barnehager. The report notesthat the high quality in the Norwegianbarnehager is a support to Norwegianparents, and makes parenthood a positiveexperience. The report concludes thatNorway has good statistics and research onseveral areas of ECCE. These include livingconditions for families with small children,pre-school teachers professionaldevelopment and their professionalexperience, as well as good knowledgeabout children's language development andspecial educational work for small children.The research proposes the establishment ofa centre for barnehager research.

The Ministry of Children and Family Affairshas also conducted an evaluation to ensurethat the Framework Plan for Barnehagerwas being implemented (Kosiander andReigstad, 2000). This stated that:

…most of the institutions hadimplemented the Framework Plan asintended even if there was nosystematic programme or specialefforts from the ministry to do so.(Kosiander and Reigstad, 2002:97)

A range of other research has been fundedby the government or government agenciesand carried out in Norway. A researchproject between 2002 and 2004 funded bythe Norwegian Research Council, "Gender,Complexity and Diversity in PedagogicalInstitutions for Children Aged 0-10:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations,"looked at issues of gender and diversity(Rhedding-Jones, 2002). The Ministry hasfunded projects looking at the system ofState grants for bilingual assistants,projects looking at the impact of the CashBenefit Scheme and a project on the rolesand relations in family day care (OECD,1998a). The OECD background reportnoted that the Research Council wasinvolved in four projects focused onchildren in barnehager (OECD, 1998a).

Chapter 3

Norway

47

3.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

According to the Primary School Act,children with special needs have a legalright to special education or specialeducational help before school age andthere is no lower age limit set for thisassistance (OECD, 1998a). Themunicipalities are responsible for theprovision and funding of this assistance(OECD, 1998a).

Children with disabilities are given priorityadmission to a place in a barnehager,provided that it is deemed by expertassessment that the child will be able tobenefit from attending. The local authorityis responsible for providing and financingadditional support that may be required forthe child, for example additional staffing(OECD, 1999b). According to Kosianderand Reigstad (2002), most children withspecial needs still attend public rather thanprivate institutions. As stated by Kosianderand Reigstad (2002:92):

…it is emphasised that topics ofspecial education are integrated in allsubjects, especially in the practicaland didactic training.

Municipalities are responsible for childwelfare. The barnehager also has a role toplay in terms of child welfare as a place inbarnehager is often the first way of helpingyoung children at risk. Research has beencarried out with children with disabilitiesresulting in the production of reports suchas "Of Course they should be given PriorityAdmission" (OECD, 1998a) and "TheChildren who are not here, are notDisabled." (OECD, 1998a) A researchprogramme was initiated in 1993 (OECD,1998a) entitled "The Development ofKnowledge and Initiative in SpecialEducation." The aim of this programmewas to:

… ensure that initiatives are taken tocarry out projects that can helpbolster knowledge regarding themeasures and service needed to givechildren, young people and adultswith special needs quality educationalservices in their local communities,primarily in local barnehager andschools. (OECD, 1998a:43)

The project examined why the integrationof disabled and/or different persons isdifficult, even in institutions that have hadintegration as a goal for several years.

Children from linguistic, ethnic andcultural minorities have no additional legalright of access to barnehager (as in thecase of children with disabilities), but theState gives special grants to themunicipalities who provide barnehager forthese groups. For example, the Stateprovides grants to enable the employmentof bilingual assistants. The State alsofinances 15 hours weekly attendance inbarnehager for a period of eight monthsfor newly arrived refugees.

3.7 Implications forIreland

3.7.1 Regulations

In Norway, regulations are set down inlegislation in relation to some structuralaspects of quality, such as the education ofpre-school teachers. However theregulations give considerable discretion tomunicipalities and childcare institutionsregarding many of the structural aspects ofquality such as staff-child ratios.

3.7.2 Curriculum

The curriculum for pre-schools forms thebasis for quality in childcare institutions inNorway. Under legislation, all pre-schools,both public and private, are obliged toimplement the curriculum (Framework

Chapter 3

Norway

48

Plan). The Framework Plan includes fivesubject areas which all pre-school childrenshould experience, as well as suggestionsfor content, methods to be used andexpected outcomes. The way in which theplan might be used by teachers for planningand evaluation purposes is also highlighted.The Framework Plan is sufficiently broadto be implemented in conjunction withprogrammes such as High/Scope or MarteMeo at local level. Pre-school institutionsare required to draw up a plan on anannual basis, indicating the way in whichthey will apply the curriculum and the wayin which they will evaluate theirprogramme.

The Framework Plan has been supportedat government level with the introductionof legislation which makes it mandatory forall pre-school institutions and the provisionof funds to local authorities for the deliveryof professional development programmesto ECCE professionals.

3.7.3 Staffing

Competent personnel are identified aspivotal in the provision of high quality inECCE in Norway. Currently more than onethird of all those employed as pre-schoolteachers or head teachers have completed athree-year tertiary education programme.

3.7.4 Professional Development

Professional development on an on-goingbasis is also identified as very importantand under the Framework Plan, allemployers are required to draw up longterm training plans for the professionaldevelopment of staff over several years. Thegovernment provide funds for the provisionof educational/pedagogical work at locallevel.

Training measures in Norway areconsidered in conjunction with trainingmeasures for other agencies working withchildren in municipalities, or in association

with colleges offering pre-school teachertraining. A partnership approach in thedelivery of professional developmenttraining is adopted.

3.7.5 Diversity

It is recognised that as society becomesmore diverse, this diversity will need to bereflected in the ECCE profession. InNorway there are efforts made to recruitminority groups to the ECCE professionand a programme has recently beenlaunched with the aim of increasing thenumber of men entering the ECCEprofession.

3.7.6 Parental Involvement

Parental involvement is stressed as animportant component of quality in Norwayand legislation sets out that parents mustbe involved in the ECCE institution. Allpre-school institutions must have a parent'scouncil and parents must also berepresented on the co-ordinatingcommittee of each institution. The co-ordinating committee is comprised ofparents, staff and owners and is responsiblefor the formulation of the annual plan forthe educational activities of the institution.This means that parents have a voice in theannual educational plan of each childcareinstitution.

3.7.7 Evaluation

While local authorities set standardsregarding things such as staff-child ratios,local authorities are also responsible for theimplementation of the Framework Plan inECCE institutions. This ensures that one ofthe main mechanisms for measuring andpromoting the quality of service provisionis the use of self-evaluations, as allinstitutions are required to formulate andimplement an evaluation programme aspart of an annual work programme. Localauthorities can ask for each institution'sannual work plan in connection with their

Chapter 3

Norway

49

supervision. While the exact evaluationprogramme is not set down in theFramework Plan, it is suggested that anyevaluation should include observation anddocumentation, analysis and interpretation,contemplation and self-reflection andchildren's involvement.

3.7.8 Special Needs

Children with special needs are givenpriority admission to a place in an ECCEinstitution and the local authority isresponsible for providing and financingadditional supports that may be requiredfor the child, for example additionalstaffing. The State also provides specialfunding for municipalities who provideECCE to children from linguistic, culturaland ethnic minorities.

3.7.9 Data Collection

A wide range of statistics is collected byNorway on an annual basis. Information iscollected annually in dimensions of qualitysuch as the composition of staff in ECCEinstitutions and the number of childrenwith special needs. These statistics are usedto monitor and evaluate the effects of policydecisions and to investigate the level ofsuccess of various new initiatives that areintroduced. The information gathered isprovided to the Storting and is regardedwith much interest by its members. Thisensures awareness about these measures ofquality and allows for informed policymaking in ECCE.

3.7.10 Research

Research funded by the Ministry ofChildren and Family Affairs highlighted thefact that both structural and processelements of quality must be considered.This research suggests that quality isrelated both to structure and values andthat structural definitions of quality maylack criteria that are directly related tochildren's development and health, staff jobsatisfaction, their educational ideas and the

parents' satisfaction with the quality ofservice provided.

3.7.11 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from Norway, a numberof features of quality can be identifiedwhich are worth considering in thedevelopment of a quality framework forIreland:

Provision for all children under the ageof six is co-ordinated under onegovernment department, thus providingfor the integrated provision of care andeducation for all children.

Regulations give considerable discretionto local municipalities regarding manyof the structural aspects of quality.However, legislation has beenintroduced obliging all ECCEinstitutions to implement thecurriculum.

The curriculum is a key tool utilised indefining quality. The curriculumidentifies the importance of values inany determination of quality.Implementation of the curriculum ispossible due to the highly qualified staff.The curriculum also emphasises theimportance of staff development and ofpartnership with parents as integralaspects for the provision of a qualityservice.

Currently, there are initiatives underwayto ensure adequate representation ofminority groups and men working inECCE settings

The main mechanics for themeasurement of quality in Norway is theuse of planning and self-evaluation,another requirement of the curriculum.This is undertaken at local level.

The collection of statistics on a range ofstructural features of quality in Norwayis an integral part of central governmentpolicy regarding ECCE and providesinformation on an annual basis.

Children with special needs have a rightto services as early as they will benefitfrom them and are integrated into ECCEservices.

50

Sweden

Terms Used

Alternativ Drift

Alternative Provision

Barnskötare Nursery Worker/ChildcareAssistant

Dagbarnvårdare

Family Day Care Provider

Enskild Private Service

Förskolan Journal for Early Years Practitioners

Förskollarare Early Childhood Educator

Laerarforbundet

Teacher Union in Sweden

4.1 Introduction

The issue of quality has been prominent indebates regarding ECCE in Sweden; in partthe concern for quality is a reaction to thedecentralisation of the ECCE system(Lindon, 2000). The 1998 School Actdevolved major responsibility for ECCEfrom the Ministry of Education and Scienceto the municipalities. The concern alsoresults from the economic recession andaccompanying crisis of the 1990s, which ledmany municipal authorities to introduceadministrative reforms affecting the qualityand quantity of day care through anincrease in group sizes and decrease instaff-child ratio (Pestoff and Strandbrink,2002). For example, there was an increaseof one child per group between 1998 and2002, the number of children per annualemployee increased from 4.4 to 5.7 childrenbetween 1990 and 1998 (National Agencyfor Education, 2003:24). This raisedconcerns about the quality of ECCE inSweden, for example, the increase in staff-child ratios was seen as detrimental to thequality of some provision (Lohmander,2002).

Chapter 4

Chapter 4

Sweden

51

educated staff, size and composition ofgroups and the suitability of the premisesand "…the declared goal is childcarewholly free of charge." (cited in Pestoff andStrandbrink, 2002:16)

Mayall (1996:56) notes there has been achange in the conceptualisation of childrenin Sweden in recent years as a distinctsocial group, with a shared responsibilityfor them between parents and the State

4.2.2 Policy

In Sweden, the locus of policymakingregarding ECCE is both national and local(Kamerman, 2000). While overall nationalgoals and guidelines for ECCE are set atnational level (these goals are set out in the1998 School Act, the curriculum and otherordinances), the municipality decides howthe goals should be made concrete (OECD,1999a). The National Agency for Educationmonitors the fulfilment of these goals.Municipalities are charged with providingsufficient numbers of pre-school andleisure time places, with monitoring thequality of ECCE services and with providingsufficient resources. Following thedecentralisation of responsibility for ECCE,most local authorities establishedcommittees to deal with issues of relevanceto children and adolescents (Lindon,2000). Teachers, heads of ECCE centresand of out of school provision arerepresented on these committees.

In 1996, responsibility for public childcarewas transferred from the Ministry of Healthand Social Affairs to the Ministry ofEducation and Science. This representsrecognition of the educational benefits ofECCE services and a desire to facilitate theintegration of the childcare and the formaleducation system (OECD, 1999b).

4.2.3 Funding

The main source of subsidy for parentalchildcare costs is supply funding(Candappa et al., 2003) in the form of

Most notable when looking at the issue ofquality in Sweden is the lack of centraliseddefinitions and the absence of mechanismsfor monitoring quality at a national level.Responsibility for quality assurance lieswith the local authorities and individualsettings (Mooney et al., 2003). Thegovernment once regulated ECCE servicesin a strict manner in Sweden and raised thestandards and the expectations of serviceusers nationally. According to Mooney etal. (2003:12):

Once services are generally of a highstandard and communities have cometo expect this level of service,governments appear more able todevolve responsibility for qualityassurance and have less need of acentralised approach.

4.2 Context for Quality

4.2.1 Philosophy

ECCE in Sweden is linked to a societalvision for children in the future. Childcarein Sweden has two primary aims; tosupport and encourage children'sdevelopment and learning and to enableparents to combine their childcareresponsibilities with education oremployment (OECD, 2001). ECCE has hadhigh priority for several decades and is acentral component of family policy inSweden (Kamerman, 2001). Lohmander(2002) describes childcare as a cornerstoneof the Swedish publicly funded socialwelfare system. There is a strong belief thatchildhood should be valued in and of itself(Mooney et al., 2003) and the provision ofhigh quality ECCE service is seen as animportant task for society (Lohmander,2002). Pre-school provision is alsoidentified as the first step in the life-longlearning process (Prieto et al., 2002) andthe need for a smooth transition from pre-school to school has been a concern ofpolicy makers in Sweden for many years. InSweden, special emphasis is placed on well-

Chapter 4

Sweden

52

vouchers. Since 1992, private for-profitcommercial firms were eligible to receivepublic funding for running day careservices (Pestoff and Strandbrink, 2002).

In January 2002, a nation-wide fee ceilingknown as the "Max Tax" was introduced(Petrie et al., 2003), meaning that feescannot exceed a certain sum, which had theeffect of reducing the cost for many families(OECD, 1999b). Under the "Max Tax", theparental fee for one child attending a pre-school centre is three percent of householdincome, before tax, up to a maximum ofSEK1,140 a month (€122 as of July 2002);for a second child parents pay two percentof household income and for a third childone percent. No fees are charged on fourthand subsequent children. According toPestoff and Strandbrink (2002:25), this hasstandardised the funding of childcareprovision through the voucher system forall children in Sweden

The 1998 School Act requires localauthorities to provide childcare at a pre-school, at a leisure time centre or in afamily day care home without undue delay(generally interpreted as within a threemonth period) to facilitate parents to workor study (Swedish Institute, 2001). FromJuly 2000, local authorities are required tooffer a pre-school place for at least threehours a day to children of unemployedparents. From January 2002, this alsoapplied to children from families where oneof the parents is at home on parental leavelooking after a brother or sister (SwedishInstitute, 2001). As of January 2003, allfour and five year olds are entitled to threefree hours of pre-school a day from theautumn term of the year they turn four.Provision of this is mandatory by localauthorities but children's attendance isvoluntary.

Though compulsory schooling begins atseven, since 1998 municipalities have beenobliged to provide all six year olds with aplace in a pre-school class for at least 525hours per year. Though attendance at these

classes is voluntary, virtually all six youolds attend. Sweden is moving to universalprovision; the government's long-term goalis the provision of free childcare facilities,which are available to all (Skolverket,2000).

4.2.4 Delivery Strategy

The delivery strategy in terms of ECCE inSweden is a supply strategy, as mostprovision is publicly funded and publiclydelivered. However non-municipalprovision of day care services (alternativdrift [alternative provision] or enskild[private] services) expanded following 1985(Pestoff and Strandbrink, 2002).

In 1991, the conservative governmentintroduced the idea of freedom of choice;that pre-school provision would beprivately organised but publicly funded.This led to an increase in non-municipalday care services. Pestoff and Strandbrink(2002) note that the development of non-municipal day care services has proceededvery unevenly with privately owned servicesmore likely to develop in urban than ruraland sparsely populated areas.

Non-municipal day care services includeparent co-ops, voluntary organizations,worker co-ops, organizations with specialpedagogies, and a combination of these orother forms. In particular, parent co-opswitnessed an increase in the early 1990s, asthey were often the only chance for parentsto obtain a day care place. Parent co-opsare based on parental participation andinfluence, and parents have more roles thanin municipal day care services. In 1986,there were only eighteen parent co-ops inStockholm, but by 1990 it had grown to140, and by 1995 there are about 200parent co-ops (Pestoff and Strandbrink,2002).

According to Pestoff and Strandbrink(2002), nearly two-thirds of the non-municipal day care facilities in 1995 wereeither provided by parent and worker

Chapter 4

Sweden

53

cooperatives or voluntary organizations. Atthe beginning of 1995, about twenty percent of all day care was provided by privatefacilities in Stockholm, most of which werecooperative.

4.3 Defining Quality

4.3.1 Regulation

When it comes to regulating quality inECCE in Sweden, there are no nationalstandards; rather standards are establishedby the municipalities. However, it shouldbe noted the devolution of responsibility forsetting standards followed a period whereECCE was strictly regulated:

…covering everything from types ofbuildings and child/staff ratio to thenumber of square meters per child,these regulations gradually loosenedup and became more flexible.(Lohmander, 2002:102)

The School Act 1995 stipulates thatmunicipalities must provide pre-schoolactivities of high quality and outlinesquality indicators for ECCE services inSweden:

In the ECEC settings there should bestaff with the requisite education orexperience capable of satisfying thechild's need for high quality care andeducation. The size and compositionof the groups should be appropriate.The premises should be suitable fortheir purpose. Activities should bebased on the individual needs of thechild. Children who need specialsupport for their development shouldreceive care related to their needs.(OECD, 1999a:44)

It is up to local authorities to decide theway in which these indicators areinterpreted and implemented. The privatenon-State sponsored sector is not regulatedin Sweden but this sector is quite small.

4.3.2 Curriculum

The pre-school curriculum is identified asimportant in developing quality in thepedagogical work of the pre-school (OECD,1999a). The first national guidelines forpre-schools (Educational Programme forPre-schools) were developed in Sweden in1988 (Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999). In1998, a new curriculum, "Curriculum forPreschools," came into effect. While thiscurriculum only relates to publicly fundedpre-schools, it can be used as a guide byprivate pre-schools. The current pre-schoolcurriculum is linked to the curricula forfirst and second level education andencompasses shared views on knowledge,development and learning (OECD, 1999a),providing a single framework for children'seducational experience.

The curriculum consists of two parts, "Pre-schools' Ground Values and Mission" and"Goals and Directions concerning theeducational work of preschools" (Alvestadand Samuelsson, 1999). Five groups ofGoals and Directions are specified,including norms and values, developmentand learning, children's influence, pre-school and home and co-operating withschool (Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999).The focus of the curriculum is ondemocratic principles, on the developmentof an ethical code of democracy on the partof the children, and to this end, activitiesshould be carried out in accordance withfundamental democratic values.Documentation of the work carried out isseen as important in informing thedevelopment and implementation of thecurriculum.

The curriculum does not indicate themethods to be used to reach the specifiedgoals, and as such Alvestad andSamuelsson (1999) see it as more or aphilosophical framework, than a traditionalcurriculum. It is the role of themunicipalities to decide how the goals andguidelines will be implemented. Allcommunities have a sum of money to use toeducate pre-school staff on the goals of the

Chapter 4

Sweden

54

new curriculum (Alvestad and Samuelsson,1999).

4.3.3 Staff Training

Cameron et al. (2003) note that theeducational levels, training requirementsand working conditions of staff in Swedenare high. Förskollarare (early childhoodeducators) are employed by themunicipalities to work in publicly fundedchildcare facilities and are employed towork both in pre-schools and pre-schoolclasses. Förskollarare undergo three yearsof university training and about 60 per centof those employed in pre-schools have thislevel of training.

Barnskötare (nursery worker or childcareassistant) complete three years of uppersecond level training. The OECD report(1999a) notes that it has been difficult forBarnskötare to find employment in recentyears as many municipalities try to increasequality by increasing the employment ofFörskollarare.

Cameron et al. (2003) note that Sweden iscurrently integrating its occupationalmodels within the education system, basedaround the concept of a single worker (ateacher) qualified to work in pre-schools,schools and out-of-school services. Allteachers will undergo three and a half yearsof training at degree level, of which 18months will be common to all students andthe remainder is specialised according tothe intended type of teaching (pre-schoolteachers/pedagogues, free time teachersand teachers across the whole schoolrange). All staff will be known as teachers(Swedish Ministry of Education andScience, 2000). It is hoped that the:

…provision of a common trainingframework should facilitate thebuilding of linkages across thedifferent phases of lifelong learning(OECD, 2001:99).

Dagbarnvårdare (family day careproviders) are not required by the State toobtain any training, though it isrecommended that they complete a trainingcourse. Most municipalities have institutedspecial training of about 50-100 hours asan introduction for dagbarnvårdare. Aboutthree-quarters of those providing familyday care have either a childmindercertificate or have undergone 50-100 hoursof mandatory training from municipalemployers (Cameron et al., 2003).

4.3.4 Professional Development

It is the responsibility of the municipalitiesto provide in-service training for ECCEpractitioners. A variety of trainingopportunities are provided in conjunctionwith universities ranging from shortcourses to longer term courses covering avariety of subjects, including children withspecial needs, intercultural education andeducational administration (Oberhuemerand Ulich, 1997). Petrie et al. (2003:13)describe the in-service training for centrebased services in Sweden as "...welldeveloped." However in-service training isnot so developed for family day careproviders.

The Lerum Competence DevelopmentProject began in 1994 and aimed to developa model for educator in-service training toimprove the quality of day care (Sheridan,1995). The training provided was based onfacilitating day care providers' awareness ofa range of issues and topics. The projectused a variety of methods to deliver thetraining including external lectures,literature studies, learning organisationsand self-evaluation. Teachers receivedtraining on their actual needs based onresults measured by the ECERS (Sheridan,1995).

4.3.5 Public Awareness

In Sweden, parents recognise and expectprovision of a high quality (Mooney et al.,

Chapter 4

Sweden

55

2003) and parental and societalexpectations are an important componentof quality assurance (Alcock, 1996). Oneexample of this is in the small rural town ofTrelleborg where parents demonstratedpublicly and successfully when the localmunicipality was considering increasinggroup sizes to twenty. The general concernabout the reduction in municipal spendingin ECCE, and its effects on structuralfeatures of quality such as group size andstaff ratios, also reflect a high level ofawareness and concern about the issue ofquality at a societal level.

4.4 Measuring Quality

Municipalities are responsible formonitoring the quality of ECCE, and as aresult, monitoring varies betweenmunicipalities (OECD, 1999c). In recentyears, traditional inspectors have beenreplaced with advisers who are viewed ashaving a support and development role(Mooney et al., 2003). The EducationalInspectorate of the National Agency forEducation inspects at local authority levelto ensure that all children have access to ahigh standard of childcare.

4.5 Supporting Quality

4.5.1 Pedagogical Documentation

Pedagogical documentation is a mechanismof quality assurance that is prominent inSweden (Alcock, 1996). Pedagogicaldocumentation is about making practicevisible. Documentation is seen as theprinciple mechanism for articulating thecurriculum. Pedagogical documentation isinclusive of multiple perspectives on qualityas it integrates different perspectives onquality. As well as observations, thedocumentation seems to include a broaderconcept of data gathering, includingchildren's explanations and descriptions of

experiences/works (Alcock, 1996). Themework was prevalent and documented toenable the theme to be explored at a deeplevel over an extended period of time.Themes may be a way of includingconceptual content, knowledge and skillsinto a possibly empty developmentallyappropriate curriculum. Theme work isexplicitly promoted in the Swedish andNorwegian early childhood curriculumframeworks.

4.5.2 Networks

According to Alcock (1996), organisednetworks of early childhood educators orcentres are viewed as a quality system inSweden, as they promote the exchange ofideas and facilitate ongoing professionaldevelopment amongst ECCE professionals.

One important network centres on theReggio Emilia Institute based in the teachertraining college in Stockholm. The ReggioEmilia Institute promotes networksthroughout Sweden at local, national andinternational levels (Alcock 1996). Theteachers' union (Laerarforbundet) plays astrong role in providing ongoingprofessional development amongst ECCEprofessionals through networks andseminars.

Stockholm municipality uses a networkformat to provide professional developmentcourses for early childhood educators.ECCE practitioners meet together regularlyover a nine month period for lectures,discussion and reflection around suchtopics as pedagogical leadership andreflective discourse (Alcock, 1996). Ajournal produced for ECCE practitioners(Förskolan) has a circulation of 50,000 perissue (Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997).

4.5.3 Research

Cameron et al. (2003) note that since the1960s, Sweden has collected statisticsannually on dimensions of quality such as

Chapter 4

Sweden

56

group size, ratios and staff education,which are used to monitor and evaluate theeffects of policy decisions. The NationalAgency for Education is responsible forthese official statistics which givemunicipalities a basis for monitoringdevelopments including changes in quality.

Other surveys are carried out periodically,such as surveys focused on access tochildcare for children with unemployedparents, productivity and quality inchildcare, analysis of factors influencingparents of small children and children inneed of special support in childcare. Thesesurveys provide information about thedifferent municipalities in Sweden (OECD,1999a).

In recent years, research has turned itsfocus on quality as evidenced by theconcern with the development of newprogrammes such as new parent-staffcommunication programmes, educationalprogrammes, organisational developmentprogrammes and with the evaluations ofthese programmes (OECD, 1999a). Otherimportant areas of programmedevelopment that have received fundinginclude age-flexible entry dates intoschools, pre-schools for all children,pedagogical methods for working with theyoungest children, group orientated workmethods in ECCE groups with a largenumber of children, programmes linked toenvironmental protection and conservationand male personnel in ECCE settings(OECD, 1999a).

Municipalities working together innetworks on the same programmedevelopment area can avail of specialfunding to complete this work. Oneexample is immigrant children in childcare(OECD, 1999a). The network uses seminarsand other fora to disseminate information.The National Agency for Education is alsoinvolved in several pieces of research, forexample, a forecast of future recruitmentneeds in the pre-school sector and leisuretime pedagogues, studies aimed at

monitoring the integration of the pre-school class and the school and work onidentifying and establishing qualityindicators in ECCE:

Documentation of pedagogicalactivities as a basis for evaluationand quality improvements is beingstudied in a different project. Tied tothis project is the production of studymaterials to assist in implementingpedagogical documentation as aworking method in ECEC-settings.(OECD, 1999a:64)

The National Agency for Education has alsocommissioned research reviews ofchildren's learning from the early yearsonwards.

Prieto et al. (2002) conducted a study ofparent's choice of pre-school care facilitywhich focused on whether or not pre-schoolinstitutions could be seen as meeting needs.A survey was carried out among 1,584mothers of children born in 1995, whichexamined parents' choice of pre-school carefacility in the city of Uppsala. The studyfound that parents' use of the right tochoose between pre-school facilities waseconomically, socially and culturallysegregated. Furthermore the authorssuggest that the choice of pre-school facilityin Uppsala leads to the creation of sociallyand culturally homogenous private pre-school facilities, which makes it impossiblefor them to achieve the goal of beingmeeting places.

4.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

Since the 1960's, Sweden has tried tomove away from a simpleclassification of "children at risk" and"children with special needs" relatedto a deficit concept and the role of

Chapter 4

Sweden

57

institutions being to make good thatdeficit. (Dahlberg et al., 1999:124)

Municipalities have responsibility forchildren in need of special support andmust offer a place in an ECCE setting to allthese children, whether their parents workor not. Children with additional needs areentitled to a three-hour session in a pre-school, free of charge, throughout thewhole of their childhood (OECD, 1999a).The group of children needing specialsupport is not clearly defined, for example,it can include disabled children, childrenwith difficulty concentrating or childrenwith psychosocial troubles (OECD, 1999a).One of the principles for those needingspecial supports is that their needs areprimarily to be met in regular childcare andnot by singling them out for specialtreatment (Swedish Institute, 2001).Integration is the basis for special supportand involves the careful planning of dailyactivities (OECD, 1999a). Otheradjustments that can be made to thechildcare environment include theprovision of additional support personnelor a lower adult-child ratio. More than 90per cent of municipalities have fundsearmarked for children in need of specialsupport. Most municipalities have routinesfor placement, follow-up and action plansfor pre-school children in need of specialsupport. However, half have specific goalled documents and these are often notlinked to specific funding or resources.

Many children in Sweden have roots inother cultures and these children are oftenin need of special support. One of thespecific objectives of childcare in Sweden isthe support of children's dual culturalaffiliations and their chances of activelydeveloping bilingual skills (SwedishInstitute, 2001). The government has madefunds available to provide children frombilingual backgrounds with a free three-hour session of day-care on a daily basisfrom the age of three. Special mothertongue teaching tuition is provided tochildren whose first language is notSwedish (Swedish Institute, 2001).

4.7 Implications forIreland

4.7.1 Regulations

There is a lack of centralised definitions ofquality in Sweden and an absence ofmonitoring mechanisms at a national level;rather responsibility for quality assurancelies with local authorities and individualsettings. This follows a period in whichquality was strictly monitored andcontrolled.

4.7.2 Curriculum

The pre-school curriculum is identified asimportant in developing quality in thepedagogical work of the pre-school. InSweden, a new curriculum for pre-schoolssets out the goals and directions of theeducational work of pre-schools andemphasises the development of an ethicalcode of democracy on the part of children.However, the curriculum does not indicatethe methods that are to be used to reachthese goals. Documentation for the workcarried out in pre-schools is identified asimportant in informing the developmentand implementation of the curriculum. It isbroad in design and it is the role of themunicipalities to decide how the goals andguidelines will be implemented.

4.7.3 Care and Education

One trend clearly visible in terms of ECCEis the development of a unified system ofcare and education for all children. InSweden, responsibility for public childcarewas transferred to the Ministry forEducation and Science in 1996. The newlydeveloped curriculum for pre-schooleducation is linked to the curricula for firstand second level education, thus ensuringthat there is a single framework for a child'seducational experience in Sweden. Swedenis also currently integrating its occupationalmodels within the education system, basedaround the concept of a single worker (ateacher) qualified to work in pre-schools,

Chapter 4

Sweden

58

schools, and out-of-school services.

4.7.4 Staffing

The availability of well-trainedpractitioners is seen as important in theprovision of high quality care andeducation in Sweden. Three years ofuniversity training is the standard for thoseworking in the ECCE sector. Whereaspreviously, assistants with three years ofupper second level training were employedin ECCE institutions, those with thiseducational qualification have experienceddifficulty in gaining employment over thepast few years.

4.7.5 Professional Development

Professional development is also identifiedas very important and the municipalitiesare responsible for the provision of trainingto ECCE practitioners. A range of trainingopportunities is provided in conjunctionwith the universities. For example, allmunicipalities have been provided withfunds to provide training to pre-school staffon the goals of the new curriculum.

4.7.6 Inspection

While the municipalities are responsible formonitoring the quality of ECCE, traditionalinspectors are now viewed as having asupport and development role in terms ofpromoting and supporting quality.

4.7.7 Networks

Organised networks of early childhoodeducators or centres have the potential tosupport the development of quality, as theyfacilitate both the exchange of ideas andongoing professional development. Thedevelopment of networks of practitioners isfacilitated and encouraged in Sweden andthese networks are used to provideprofessional development courses for ECCEpractitioners and to disseminate learningfrom pilot projects.

4.7.8 Parental Involvement

In Sweden, parents recognise and expectprovision of a high quality, and parentaland societal expectations are an importantcomponent of quality assurance. This hasbeen seen in recent years in the publicconcern about the trends regardingincreasing group size and staff child ratiosin ECCE institutions. In some areas ofSweden, parents have demonstratedpublicly and successfully against anincrease in group size.

4.7.9 Research

Different conceptualisations of highstandards have been explored in Swedenand in particular the project EarlyChildhood Pedagogy in a Changing Worldlooks at the development of high standardsin ECCE institutions from a post-modernperspective.

4.7.10 Data Collection

Sweden has collected statistics annually ondimensions of quality such as group size,ratios and staff education. These statisticsare used to monitor and evaluate the effectsof policy decisions and give municipalities abasis for monitoring changes in pre-schoolprovision. Some research has focused onnew programmes introduced such as a newparent/staff communication programme,new educational programmes andorganisational development programmes.

4.7.11 Special Needs

Municipalities are required to offer a placein an ECCE institution to all children withspecial needs. Integration is the basis forthe provision of support for children withspecial needs and this involves the carefulplanning of daily activities and theadjustments to the ECCE environment.Children from a non-Swedish culturalbackground also receive additionalsupports.

Chapter 4

Sweden

59

4.7.12 Pedagogical Documentation

Pedagogical documentation is a mechanismof quality assurance and is pervasive inpractice in ECCE institutions. It is anapproach that is inclusive of multipleperspectives on quality as it integratesdifferent perspectives on quality.

4.7.13 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from Sweden, a numberof features of quality can be identifiedwhich are worth considering in thedevelopment of the National Frameworkfor Quality in Ireland:

A unified system of care and educationis an important feature of ECCE inSweden.

There is a single framework for a child'seducational experience at pre-primary,first and second level education.

There is no single definition of qualityand considerable discretion is given tolocal municipalities regarding aspects ofquality. The curriculum provides aunifying framework for quality in ECCEservices. Highly qualified practitionerssupport this curriculum with access toprofessional development opportunities.

While municipalities are responsible forthe monitoring of ECCE, inspectors arenow viewed as having a support anddevelopment role in promoting,supporting and developing quality.

One unique feature of the ECCE sectorin Sweden is the use of networks tosupport quality in the ECCE sector.

Other mechanisms for supportingquality include the widespread use ofpedagogical documentation and ageneral awareness and concern at asocietal level regarding some of theaspects of high quality childcare.

The collection of statistics on a range ofstructural features of quality in Swedenis an integral part of central governmentpolicy regarding ECCE and provides abasis for policy decisions.

An integrated approach is adopted forchildren with special needs.

60

Portugal

Terms Used

Centros de Área Education AreaEducativa Centros Centres

Regionais de Regional Social Segurança Security Centres

Departamento da Department of Educação Básica Basic Education

Direcções Regionais Regional Officede Educação of Education

Educadores de Trained andInfância Licensed Pre-

school Teachers

Escolas Superiores School of Higherde Educação Education

Gabinete para a Bureau for theExpansão e Expansion andDesenvolvimento da Development ofEducação Pré-Escolar Pre-school

Education

Grupo de Estudos para Study Group foro Desenvolvimento da Child EducationEducação de Infância and Development

Inspecção Geral de Inspector GeneralEducação for Education

Jardin de Infância Non-formalEducationalContexts for 3 to5 Year OldChildren

Licienciatura Honours Degree

Misericórdias CharitableOrganisationswith a SpecialStatus

Chapter 5

Chapter 5

Portugal

61

5.1 Introduction

According to Wall et al. (2001:2):

Portugal is usually described as acountry with a strong and explicitideological commitment to the family,but a low profile as far as family andchild policies are concerned. The ideaof a rudimentary welfare Stateunderlines the precariousness of stateprovision, especially of care services,which are compensated by traditionalwelfare guarantees stemming fromstrong families and informal supportnetworks.

Despite this, there have been some changesover the last two decades in the provision ofcare and education services for children.

Two distinct systems can be seen inPortugal, a system focused on the care ofyoung children and a system focused on theeducation of children aged three to six. Pre-school education in Portugal is legallydefined as education provided for childrenbetween the ages of three and six. Hencethe term pre-school has a different meaningin Portugal than other European countries,where it is used to describe settings foryoung children from birth to the beginningof compulsory schooling. Policy relating tothe development of formal childcarefacilities for very small children below agethree has not been as high on the politicalagenda as pre-school education.

5.2 Context for Quality

5.2.1 Philosophy

In focusing primarily on pre-schooleducation for children over the age of three,childcare in Portugal "...has essentiallybeen envisaged from the point of view ofthe child's education career, rather thanfrom the point of promoting the

reconciliation of work and family life."(Wall et al., 2001:4).

5.2.2 Policy

Policy responsibility for ECCE in Portugalis shared by two ministries, the Ministry ofEducation and the Ministry of Labour andSolidarity. This mirrors the division thatexists in Portugal between provision that isdeemed to have an educational functionand provision that is deemed to have acaring function (OECD, 2001). TheMinistry of Education has responsibility forpedagogical quality in all educationalsettings. The Ministry of Labour andSolidarity has responsibility for familysupport provision for children aged 3months and older (OECD, 2001). Allpublished legislation is the jointresponsibility of the Ministry of Educationand the Ministry of Labour and Solidarity(OECD, 1998b).

While policy is conceptualised, defined,planned, co-ordinated, inspected andevaluated at national level, the OECD(2000a) notes that there is a great degreeof de-concentration, if not fulldecentralisation, in pedagogical action andthe support provided to the management ofhuman, material and financial resources. Inthe case of the Ministry of Education, thisis achieved through the DirecçõesRegionais de Educação (DRE or RegionalOffice of Education), which integrate theCentros de Área Educativa (EducationArea Centres) at the district level (OECD,2000a). The DRE give co-ordination andsupport to the educational settings andmanages human, material and financialresources in these settings. Within theMinistry of Labour and Solidarity,decentralisation is achieved through theCentros Regionais de Segurança Social(CRSS or Regional Social Security Centres)and their sub-regional services. The CRSSsupport the social aspects of the childwithin educational contexts, organising andaccepting financial responsibility for meals,transport and extracurricular activities.

Chapter 5

Portugal

62

In recent years, the Ministry of Educationand the Ministry of Labour and Solidarityhave attempted to co-ordinate theiractivities through the establishment offormal institutional lines to promotedialogue and co-operation. In 1996, aBureau for the Expansion and Developmentof Pre-school Education (Gabinete para aExpansão e Desenvolvimento da EducaçãoPré-Escolar) was established, in an attemptto promote co-ordination in the ECCEsector. This Bureau brought together majorstakeholders in the ECCE sector includingthe two Ministries, the Consulting Councilof Representatives of the NationalAssociation of Municipalities, the Union ofPrivate and Social Solidarity Institutions(IPSS), the Association of Private andCooperative Education and the Unions ofthe Misericórdias and Mutual Trusts. Themain aim of the Bureau is to provide aconcerted framework to promote theexpansion of the pre-school network asrequired and to contribute to theimprovement of the quality of provision(OECD, 1998b).

A government Programme for theExpansion and Development of Pre-schoolEducation was drafted in 1996 and wasfollowed in 1997 by the Framework Law,which co-ordinated the diverse provisionfor young children, and included for thefirst time the three-to-six-year-olds withinthe realm of basic education. Thegovernment programme intends that theexpansion and development of pre-schoolprovision should take place in co-ordination with municipal, private andsocial welfare institutions, with centralgovernment assuming a guiding andregulatory role.

While there are moves towardsdecentralisation of ECCE in Portugal, thesemoves have been resisted by professionalswho argued against the withdrawal of Stateresponsibility (Oberhumeur and Ulich,1997:27). Much of the implementation ofECCE in Portugal depends on municipalityinitiatives (Clearinghouse, 2003c).

5.2.3 Funding

The main source of funding in Portugal issupply side subsidies (Candappa et al.,2003). In pre-schools belonging to thepublic network, the operating costs areshouldered by the M.E. (educationalcomponent) and the M.L.S. (socialcomponent), although financialresponsibility for the "social" componentmay be transferred by agreement to thelocal authorities (Wall et al., 2001). In pre-schools belonging to private non-profitinstitutions, the State pays for 62 per centof expenditures and families pay for 38 percent. Funding is carried out on the basis ofthe cost of each child, and the amount perchild is fixed annually by the State (jointlyby the M.E. and the M.L.S.) after hearingthe organisations that represent theinterests of these institutions. In privateand cooperative school establishments,families pay for almost all expenditures (95per cent); families are supposed to shoulderthe costs here, but the law on pre-schooleducation allows for some sponsorship inthese schools via the establishment ofspecial development programmes. Only thepublic sector requires no fees from parents.Average costs to parents for childcareamount to about 11 per cent of an averageaggregate family salary.

In Portugal, compulsory schooling begins atage 6. According to Wall (2000:38):

…child care facilities are lacking inPortugal. There are hardly anynurseries for children below agethree, because the state considerschildcare a purely educational task.For this reason, the current offer onlycomprises pre-school day nurseriesfor children above three. Many carefacilities are open only five hours perday and close during lunch.

Historically, Portugal has had a relativelylow level of day care provision for thoseunder the age of three (Lindon, 2000).However there is growing awareness of theneed for provision for 0-3 year old children

Chapter 5

Portugal

63

(Wall 2003) and the expansion of pre-school education is now a high governmentpriority (Lindon, 2000).

Policy measures have been largely focusedon the expansion of pre-school education.This involves free access to a five-hour pre-school session for all five year olds. It isplanned to extend this provision to all four-year olds in the near future (OECD, 1998b).Female employment, social need and thepopulation of three-six year olds in an areaare the main criteria for government choiceof where the expansion of pre-schoolservices should take place.

Ninety percent of those aged five-six,seventy per cent of those aged four-five andsixty per cent of children aged three-fourare enrolled in a pre-school (OECD, 2001).Among children under the age of three,almost 90 per cent are cared for by theirfamilies or through informal childcarearrangements. Just twelve per cent ofchildren aged birth-three are cared for incrèches or by family day care providers(OECD, 2001).

5.2.4 Delivery Strategies

According to Wall et al. (2001), the mainrole of the State is as a coordinator, plannerand financial supporter of services ratherthan a direct provider. The ECCE networkin Portugal is both public and private.

In the case of children aged birth to three,services are either established by theMinistry of Labour and Solidarity itself orby other entities such as private individuals'co-operatives, IPSS or other non-profitinstitutions. Services for children under theage of three is largely provided by thevoluntary sector (particularly non-profitsocial solidarity institutions andestablishments belonging to theMisericórdias and parents who areresponsible for paying for some of the costsof childcare arrangements. The State(M.L.S.) provides early childhoodinstitutions for a small proportion of users

(no more than one tenth of all users) whilethe State-supported "third sector" includesover 80 per cent of all users (Wall et al.,2001:4). The private profit-making sectorcompensates for the remaining gaps.

Wall et al. (2001) note that in Portugal,responsibility for the development of pre-school education is shared by three distinctsectors, the public sector (establishmentsbelonging to local authorities and tonational government, either the Ministry ofEducation or the Ministry of Labour andSolidarity), the private non-profit makingsector and the private (for profit) sector.According to Wall et al. (2001), in 1998-99,the private share (profit and non-profit-making) of establishments for the three tofive age groups in terms of the proportionof users was 54 per cent (almost two thirds(63 per cent) of this share belonging to theprivate not-for-profit sector). Theimportance of the private sector is greaterin urban areas such as Lisbon (75 per cent),Porto (67 per cent) and the Setubalpeninsula (75 per cent).

5.3 Defining Quality

5.3.1 Regulation

The Framework Law for Pre-SchoolEducation, published in 1997, establishedthe juridical framework for pre-schooleducation in Portugal (Vasconcelos, 1998).Under this Law, pre-school education isviewed as the first step in basic education,providing an important foundation for lifelong learning (Vasconcelos, 1997b). TheJardin de Infância12 is identified as a"…transitional site between family andschool." (Vasconcelos, 1998:5)

The Framework Law outlines principlesregarding the structure, organisation,

12 Jardins de Infância are non-formal educational contextsfor three to five year old children, where both children andadults are supervised by specialised staff. Children are givenopportunities to develop learning skills through self-discoveryand communication with other children and adults.

Chapter 5

Portugal

64

pedagogical and financial aspects of pre-school education (OECD, 1998b) as follows;in article 5 (strategic role of the State),article 8 (Pedagogical and TechnicalResponsibilities), article 11 (PedagogicalDirectives), article 18 (Staff), article 19(Training and Provision of CulturalActivities), and articles 20 and 21(Evaluation and Inspection) (OECD,1998b). The role of the State is set outunder Article 5:

To establish the general norms forpre-school education, especially interms of organisational, pedagogicand technical aspects, and to ensuretheir fulfilment and application bymeans of monitoring, assessment andinspection. (Vasconcelos, 1998:13)

Under Article 8, the State is responsible fordefining the general guidelines controllingpre-school education (especially inpedagogic and technical terms) and has thepower to define rules for the activities ofnursery schools, to define syllabusobjectives and guidelines, to define thequalification requirements of teaching andnon teaching staff and to define andprovide training requirements(Vasconcelos, 1998). The State also has thepower to define the rules for assessing thequality of pre-school provision and toundertake monitoring and inspection.

The Framework Law appeals to theparticipation of local structures, parents'associations, residents' associations, civicorganisations and others in the pre-schooleducational process. It requires parents toparticipate in pre-school education.According to Article 4, parents andguardians have a role to participate in therunning of pre-schools, either throughrepresentatives elected for that purpose orthrough representative associations.Parents also have a role to play indeveloping a co-operative relationship withteachers and staff, voicing their opinion onthe opening hours of the facility andparticipating under the pedagogical

guidance of the educational context, asvolunteers, in educational activities.

5.3.2 Curriculum

National curriculum guidelines for Pre-school Education were legally establishedin 1997 and became binding in 1998-99(Vasconcelos, 1998). These require theJardin de Infância to address educationalissues, both public and private, whetherthey are organised by the Ministry ofEducation or the Ministry of Labour andSolidarity. The OECD (2000a) note thatthis shows the keenness of the State toaccept responsibility for the raising ofquality in ECCE. The curriculumguidelines:

…are a statement of what childrenshould learn in pre-school. Thecurriculum guidelines aim to givegreater visibility to pre-schooleducation, facilitating educationalcontinuity with elementary school.They also aim to improve the qualityof pre-school education byintroducing innovative dynamics thatwill stimulate pedagogical activity.(Vasconcelos, 1998:8)

The curriculum guidelines are designed tohelp practitioners make day to daydecisions about practice (Vasconcelos,1998) and are a common reference pointsto guide the work undertaken by pre-schoolteachers. They are guidelines, not aprescriptive list of targets to be realised(Vasconcelos, 1998). The curriculumguidelines lay out the general principlesand pedagogical aims of the Pre-schoolLaw. In addition, they define the overallguidelines for the pre-school practitioner inrelation to observing, planning, acting,assessing communicating and articulating(Vasconcelos, 1997a).

The introduction of curriculum guidelinesfor pre-school education is seen as animportant measure in ensuring the qualityof the national network of pre-school

Chapter 5

Portugal

65

educational facilities, whether public orprivate (Vasconcelos, 1998). As Vasconcelos(1996:12) states:

Curriculum guidelines are seen as animportant part of the regulatory roleof the state in order to provideeducational quality to all pre-schoolprograms.

The curriculum guidelines are organisedinto three content areas:

1. Personal and social development; 2. Expression and communication

(which includes mastering differentforms of expression, masteringlanguage and an initial approach toreading, writing and mathematics)and;

3. Knowledge of the world(Vasconcelos, 2002).

5.4 Measuring Quality

5.4.1 Inspection

Regulation is the responsibility of the State(OECD, 1998b). The Ministry of Educationis responsible for the supervision andinspection of the pre-school educationsystem. The Inspecção Geral de Educação(Inspector General for Education) isresponsible for the regulation and co-ordination of pre-schools and can use legal,administrative, financial and eventually,disciplinary mechanisms to correct anysituation found to be inadequate (OECD,1998b).

The Inspector-General for Education is alsoresponsible for the development ofperformance evaluation mechanisms(OECD, 1998b). According to the InspectorGeneral, the main quality objectives of pre-school provision are as follows:

Planning of educational activity;

Administrative organisation;

Organisation of the educationalenvironment;

Content development as described incurriculum guidelines;

Children observation practices;

Pedagogical relations;

Resource management (OECD,1998b:74).

Specific objectives, together withobservation criteria measured on four-pointquality scales, were set in all the aboveactivity areas. Evaluations are carried outby an inspector on a national randomsample of Jardins de Infância. Theevaluative nature of the inspection processinvolves teachers in the discussion of theinformation gathered. Inspectors assess thequality of the "implemented curriculum"and the quality of the "achievedcurriculum" (OECD, 1998b:75), as well asthe quality of the learning experiencesprovided:

Thus, the aim of the PedagogicalAudit Project carried out by theInspector-General of Education is tocontribute to the quality controlprocess of the educational provisionoffered by the Portuguese Jardins deInfância through a form of externalevaluation based on jointdiagnostic/improvement practices.(OECD, 1998b:75)

Inspections identify the strengths andweaknesses of the operation andoperational conditions of the Jardins deInfância (OECD, 1998b). Forms ofchildcare provision under the auspices ofthe Ministry of Labour and Solidarity aresupervised and inspected by the Ministry'sInspector General, the Social SecurityRegional Centres and the Sub-RegionalServices. According to its own Organic Law,the objectives of the Inspectorate Generalare to supervise and inspect the followingoperational aspects of all the Ministry'sservices and institutions:

Abidance to the Law and the rulesleading to the good operation of theservices and institutions;

Chapter 5

Portugal

66

Efficient management andadministration, legality of processes anddecisions adopted as well as thefrequency of financial transactions;

Adaptation of norms to requirementsand eventual need for new strategies(OECD, 1998b:54).

5.4.2 Quality Measured Using ECERS

The ICCE project was a cross-nationalstudy that considered quality in centre-based ECCE programmes for children agedthree to six years of age across fivecountries, including Portugal (Tietze et al.,1996). Two scales, the ECERS and the CIS,were used to observe process quality in pre-school classrooms across these countries(Tietze et al., 1996). Considerable effortwas made to ensure that the scales wereapplicable to all countries selected and thatinterpretation of all items on the scales wasconsistent. In terms of ECERS scores, noclassroom in Portugal was found to havescores in the lowest quality range(inadequate). However of the five countries,Portugal had the fewest classrooms in thehighest quality range (Tietze et al.,1996:464). Portugal was found to havehighest scores across the dimension ofproviding more or less "…personalisedcare…" in settings but scored low on thedimension "…availability and use of spaceand play materials…" Adequate space andmaterials for a variety of play activities inorder to encourage children to developskills in many rather than a fewdevelopmental areas was necessary for ahigh score on this dimension of quality, andthe results suggest that Portuguese pre-schools were lacking in this regard.

In looking at the relations betweenstructural and process quality acrossseveral countries, Cryer et al. (1999) notedthat in Portugal, teacher experience,enrolment size, hours opened and directorexperience were the structuralcharacteristics that best predictedclassroom process quality. The researchersalso found significant regional variations in

structural quality in Portugal, with ECERSscores significantly higher in southern asopposed to northern Portugal.

5.5 Supporting Quality

5.5.1 Staff Training

There is a recognition that no plan for theexpansion of high quality ECCE will bepossible without ECCE professionals(Vasconcelos, 1996). All Jardins deInfância are staffed by trained and licensedpre-school teachers called educadores deinfância (OECD, 2000a). All pre-schoolsettings have a pedagogical director who isa qualified pre-school teacher (OECD,1998b). However, it is suggested thatteachers working in private non-profitorganisations have a lower level of trainingthan those working in the public sector(OECD, 2000a).

Professionals that work in other forms ofchildcare provision, other than Jardins deInfância, include educadores de infância,nurses and social workers, all of whomhave tertiary-level qualifications, andauxiliary workers who are not required tohave a particular qualification. Even whenqualified, staff working in these facilitieshave a lower level of status, pay andworking conditions than those employed inthe Jardins de Infância. Some action hasbeen taken to raise the qualification ofthose working in these settings and underFramework Law, IPSS settings must haveat least one pre-school teacher perclassroom in order to qualify forgovernment funding.

Educadores de infância undertake a four-year course of study leading to an honoursdegree (licienciatura) at either a universityor a school of higher education (EscolasSuperiores de Educação). Pre-schoolteachers who have completed the four yeardegree receive the same starting salaries inpublic pre-school provision as primaryteachers who have received the same level

Chapter 5

Portugal

67

of training. By law, teachers haverecognised working hours for thepreparation of materials and have teammeeting as well as parent meetings(Vasconcelos, 2002). They also have aprofessional association, the Association forProfessionals of Early Childhood(Vasconcelos, 2002).

5.5.2 Professional Development

Vasconcelos (2002:52) notes that onepolitical measure taken in the last few yearswas "…systematic in-service training (ifpossible centre based) for all earlychildhood teachers, whether they work atpublic or private institutions." In-servicetraining is offered by a variety of differentbodies, including training centres or bypublic and private entities, many of whomhave developed training programmes inpartnership with teacher training colleges.Training Centres are local municipal orinter-municipal centres established withthe following aims:

To contribute to in-service trainingpromotion;

To promote the exchange andpublication of pedagogical experiences;

To promote identification of trainingneeds;

To regulate training provision inaccordance with national and localneeds meeting, whenever possible,teachers individual requirements forassistance with training;

To set up and manage resource centres(OECD, 1998b:84).

There are 211 centres operating in Portugal.Vasconcelos (2002) notes that courses havebeen offered to practitioners in order tocomplete their degrees.

5.5.3 Parents

Parents are recognised by law as partnersin pre-school education (Vasconcelos,2002) and are seen as essential for the

achievement of maximum outcomes forchildren:

They need to cooperate in theorganisation of kindergartens andthey are expected to participate inparent associations. They are alsorepresented in the Board of eachkindergarten and have a word to sayin the educational project of thekindergarten. (Vasconcelos, 2002:53)

Parents are also consulted by the Ministryof Education regarding policy in ECCE.Mooney et al. (2003) state that the level ofparental involvement in pre-schools inPortugal is low, despite the legislativeimportance given to parental involvement.They suggest that this may be due to thefact that Portugal has one of the highestrates of maternal employment amongWestern European countries, and onaverage, the longest working hours.

5.5.4 Research

Several research projects have beencompleted in the last decade in Portugal(OECD 1998b). For example, theDepartamento da Educação Básicatranslated and adapted the EEL materialsand provided teacher training throughoutthe country to adapt and disseminate amodel of quality evaluation andimprovement among ECCE professionalsworking in all three networks of Jardins deInfância. Other research carried outincluded research conducted by the LisbonSchool of Education around curriculum,early development, and quality issues andresearch conducted by the Institute of ChildStudies in the University of Minho. (OECD,1998b)

According to the OECD (1998b) report, theGrupo de Estudos para o Desenvolvimentoda Educação de Infância (Study Group forChild Education and Development) waspreparing the first issue of a researchjournal in ECCE, covering children from

Chapter 5

Portugal

68

birth to the end of the first cycle of basiceducation.

The Development of PedagogicalKnowledge in the Education and TrainingSystems Research Centre (located in theUniversity of Aveiro) was established byresearchers from the University of Aveiro,the University of Algarve, the University ofCoimbra and the Higher Institute ofEducation of the Polytechnic Institute ofCoimbra. It is currently carrying out severalprojects in ECCE. This includes a projectentitled Promoting Quality in EarlyChildhood Education. Some perspectives ofintervention and research have beenidentified and there are three qualityapproaches which frame the project. Theseare the:

Enrichment of the environment(physical environment and learningexperiences in different developmentalareas - motor, cognitive-linguistic,affective-social...);

Adult style (sensitivity, stimulation,autonomy promotion) and;

Family and community involvement(University of Aveiro, Accessed at:http://www.ii.ua.pt/, 1st July, 2004).

Areas of training, intervention and researchinclude initial and ongoing training forearly childhood and elementary teachers,teaching practice, early intervention andwork with families (University of Aveiro,Accessed at: http://www.ii.ua.pt/, 1st July,2004).

Other projects undertaken by the universityinclude the early intervention project ofAveiro (a promotion strategy for the well-being and global development of childrenless than six years of age and their families,identified as being at risk) and a project onconstructing quality in infant day care. Thisproject aims to develop a database ofquality patterns validated by the scientificcommunity, others professionals andparents. Furthermore, it aims to promote inthe adherent day-care centres to the

project, by means of a participatory processof analysis, a manual for quality,considering the proposed quality patternsand its own specifications (University ofAveiro, Accessed at: http://www.ii.ua.pt/,1st July, 2004).

5.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

The OECD report (OECD, 2000a) notesthat in Portugal, the identification ofspecial needs was usually delayed untilchildren enter primary school. The place ofchildren with special needs within the pre-school system is strongly protected in law.Children at risk of disadvantage are givenpriority entrance into some services. Recentlegislation has called attention to thesechildren and provides for early interventionstrategies to meet their needs. There isgrowing inclusion of children withdisabilities in all branches of education andthe policy goal in Portugal is inclusionwithin regular schools whenever possible.

There are sizeable numbers of childrenfrom linguistic, cultural and ethnicminorities centred especially around urbanareas such as Lisbon, Setúbal and Porto.Several social integration programmes withan educational component have beensponsored by the High Commission forEthnic Minorities, by governmentministries and by municipalities.

In sparsely populated areas, where thenumber of children do not reach theminimum required for the setting up of aJardin de Infância (i.e. fifteen), theMinistry of Education may establish anitinerant child education service (Educaçiodê Infancia) for three to five year oldchildren. Educaçio dê infamcia are mobilesessional services designed to reachfamilies in remote areas with little access toother forms of provision.

Chapter 5

Portugal

69

Community educational activities may beprovided in Children's Community Centresin deprived urban areas. Five-year-oldchildren who live in highly populatedand/or deprived suburban areas, lacking incultural and educational facilities, mayexperience these kinds of activities throughbuildings made available by the localcommunity.

5.7 Implications forIreland

5.7.1 Care and Education

There are two distinct systems involved inthe provision of ECCE in Portugal; a caresystem focused on the provision of care forchildren from three months to three yearsof age and an education system focused onthe provision of pre-school opportunitiesfor children between the ages of three andsix years. Reflecting this, policyresponsibility is shared by two governmentministries; the Ministry of Education isresponsible for provision with aneducational function and the Ministry ofLabour and Solidarity responsible forprovision with a caring function. Effortshave been made in recent years to improvethe co-ordination of ECCE with theestablishment of the Bureau for theExpansion and Development of Pre-schoolEducation, which brings together some ofthe major stakeholders in the provision ofECCE.

5.7.2 Regulation

One significant measure undertaken toimprove quality, particularly in terms of thepre-schools in recent years, was theintroduction of comprehensive legislationcovering pre-schools (institutions providingeducational opportunities to childrenbetween the ages of three and six). TheFramework Law outlines principlesregarding the structure, organisation,pedagogical and financial aspects of pre-

school education. Under the FrameworkLaw, the State is responsible for definingthe general guidelines governing pre-schools, particularly in pedagogical terms.It is also responsible for the monitoringand assessment of the implementation ofthe guidelines. The Framework Law placeson a legislative basis aspects of quality suchas curriculum guidelines and parentalinvolvement.

5.7.3 Parents

In Portugal, the importance of participationwith parents in the search for quality inpre-school institutions is recognised andparents are recognised by law as partnersin pre-school education. Parents areexpected to participate in the running ofthe pre-school either throughrepresentatives or representativeassociations. Parents are seen as having arole to play in developing a partnershiprelationship with providers, in voicing theiropinion on the opening hours of the facilityand on participating in the educationalactivities of the pre-school.

5.7.4 Curriculum

Curriculum guidelines for all pre-schoolservices, both public and private, are laiddown in legislation in Portugal. Thesecurriculum guidelines lay down whatchildren should learn in pre-school. Theyaim to improve the quality of pre-schoolprovision by stimulating pedagogicalactivity in pre-schools, and as such, are acommon reference points that allpractitioners can use in their work.

5.7.5 Inspection

Inspection is the main mechanism utilisedby the Ministry of Education for thesupervision and inspection of the pre-school educational system, however, thisinspection is evaluative in nature. It isbased on joint diagnosis and improvementprocedures. An important part of the

Chapter 5

Portugal

70

inspection process is the involvement ofpre-school teachers in a discussion of theinformation gathered.

5.7.6 Staffing

It is recognised in Portugal that suitablytrained and qualified early childhoodprofessionals are essential for theexpansion of high quality ECCE. All pre-schools in Portugal are staffed by trainedand licensed pre-school teachers and have apedagogical director who is a qualified pre-school teacher. This means that pre-schoolinstitutions are staffed by teachers thathave completed a four year course of studyleading to an honours degree at either auniversity or a school of higher education.Pre-school teachers with this qualificationemployed in public pre-schools receive thesame starting salaries as primary teacherswith the same level of training.

5.7.7 Professional Development

The importance of ongoing professionaldevelopment in promoting high qualityECCE is recognised in Portugal and onemeasure adopted by the government inrecent years was the provision of in-servicetraining for all pre-school teachers,employed in both public and private pre-school institutions. In-service training isoffered by a variety of different bodiesincluding training centres and a variety ofpublic and private entities. Many of thetraining programmes on offer have beendeveloped in partnership with teachertraining colleges.

5.7.8 Special Needs and Disadvantage

Children at risk are given priority entranceinto some early education services inPortugal. Some social integrationprogrammes have been sponsored forchildren from linguistic, cultural and ethnicminorities. An itinerant child educationservice is provided in some sparselypopulated areas and community

educational activities are provided forchildren in some deprived urban areas.

5.7.9 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from Portugal, a numberof features of quality can be identified,which are worth considering in thedevelopment of a quality framework forIreland:

In the development of the ECCE sector,co-ordination of developments betweengovernment departments is importantand efforts have been made in Portugalin recent years to improve co-ordinationbetween government departments.

Quality in ECCE in Portugal is broadlydefined; it includes features such ascurriculum guidelines and parentalparticipation.

Emphasis is placed on suitably trainedand qualified personnel and theprovision of professional developmentin the promotion of high quality inECCE institutions.

The inspection of pre-schools isevaluative in nature, based on apartnership approach with pre-schoolteachers.

Some social integration programmes areprovided and services provided forchildren at risk of both urban and ruraldisadvantage.

71

Germany

Terms Used

Bundesländer German States

Erzieherinnen Educators

Gymnasium University Entry LevelHigh School

Hauptschule Second-level Schooloffering Five to Six Yearsof Schooling

Jugendamt Youth Office providingStatutory Youth Services

Kinderhort After School Care

Kinderpflegerinnen

Nursery AuxiliaryWorkers

Lander State

Realschule Second-level Schooloffering Six or SevenYears of Schooling

Schillerstraße Schiller Street

Sonderkindergärten / Förderkindergärten

Settings for Children withSpecial Needs

SozialpadagoginnenSocial Pedagogues

Tagesmutter Family Day Care Provider

Trager Provider

Vorklassen Pre-school Classes

6.1 Introduction

The reunification of Germany in 1990 led tothe integration of two different systems ofcare and education. Prior to reunification,provision of ECCE was more extensive inEast Germany than in the West. Allchildren from the age of three in the Eastwere entitled to a place in a Kindergartenprogramme; the primary aim of thisprovision was to facilitate parents accessingthe workforce. Tietze et al. (1996:445) notethat: "All programs offered free, full-day

Chapter 6

Chapter 6

Germany

72

services. A centralised state-controlledcurriculum was used." In contrast, thefemale labour force participation rate waslower in the West. Consequently, enrolmentin ECCE programmes for children betweenthe ages of three and school going age waslower in the West and many programmesoffered only sessional care.

The Child and Youth Welfare Act (1990)created a legislative framework covering allchildcare and educational services in theEast and West. Though there is a greaterdiversity of provision in the Western States(Lindon, 2000), provision of day careservices and particularly full day care forchildren under the age of three is still morelimited in the West than the East.

There are no binding care guidelines for thecountry as a whole. This means that thereare considerable differences betweenindividual States with regard to the form ofday-care centres for children. There is alsoa separation between education and care inGermany. Care services provide forchildren under the age of three, whilechildren over the age of three accesseducational services (Pettinger, 1993).

Concerns about quality in Germany haveemerged in the 1990s, partly as a result ofthe changing context of ECCE services, andpartly due to the increasing importance oftransparency and cost effectiveness. InGermany, the federal system impacts onquality. The commitment to provide a pre-school place for every child from the age ofthree also raised concerns for quality, assome felt that this legal entitlement wouldbe obtained through the increase in groupsize and staff-child ratios. This was a realconcern as this commitment was made at atime when Germany was experiencingfinancial restrictions. Consequently, qualityassurance grew in importance(Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997).

Some experts in early education inGermany believe that German pre-schooleducation is fundamentally lacking in

generally binding and measurable qualitystandards and that it is now at a very lowlevel on an international scale. They arecritical of the fact that though childcarepolicy aims to remedy quantitative deficits,such as a lack of Kindergarten places oropening times that are too short, it doeslittle for the quality of the educational work(Goethe Institut, Accessed at:http://www.goethe.de/kug/buw/sub/ein/en24571.htm, 1st July, 2004).

6.2 Context for Quality

6.2.1 Philosophy

The Child and Youth Welfare Act (1990)determines that the primary aim of pre-school education is to facilitate thedevelopment of a responsible and sociallycompetent child. Pre-schools are to providesupport to parents in the upbringing oftheir child. Development is achievedthrough play and other suitable activities.Keaveny (2002) notes that children areintroduced to communal living inKindergartens, becoming familiar withorganized daily routines and with basicprinciples of hygiene. The Kindergartenalso provides important school preparationfor children. Programmes are developedbased on the educational aims of theinstitution and its philosophical, religiousor educational principles. Gelder (2000:49)remarks that:

…the argument that children needroutine - perhaps better calledrhythm - is strong in Germany. It isan issue in textbooks for childcareworkers and parents. The physicaland emotional development processof children is seen to demandstructure and it is believed thatlearning is supported by routines.

6.2.2 Policy

Germany has a federal political structure

Chapter 6

Germany

73

with sixteen States (Bundesländer). Overallresponsibility for pre-school education inGermany lies with the central government.In Germany, pre-school education is part ofthe social welfare and not the educationsystem (Griebel and Niesel, 1999). Underthe Basic Law, the central governmentenacts legislation on child and youthwelfare within the framework of publicwelfare. This includes legislationconcerning pre-school education forchildren in day-care centers (Keaveny,2002).

The Child and Youth Welfare Act (1990)empowered individual States to devise theirown ECCE legislation. Under this act, theLander (States) are required to giveconcrete form to the general outlines of thelaw on pre-school institutions through theirown legislation. Lander experience a greatdeal of autonomy, and as a result,legislative and administrative structuresdiffer from Lander to Lander, with notabledifferences between Eastern and WesternLander. Most services are the responsibilityof the social or welfare ministries at a locallevel. The implementation and financing ofchild and youth welfare legislation,including pre-school education, is theresponsibility of the local authorities(Kultusministerkonferenz13 , Accessed at:http://www.kmk.org/dossier/dossier_2002/3_preschool_2002.pdf, 15th July, 2004).

6.2.3 Funding

Funding varies from Lander to Lander(Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997) but the maintype of funding supplied for ECCE is supplyfunding (Candappa et al., 2003).Kindergartens and other childcare facilitiesare funded from four different sources, thespecific provider (trager), parental fees,local authority subsidies and State

subsidies (Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997). Inthe case of Kindergartens, parentalcontributions are graduated accorded toincome so that low-income families canafford a Kindergarten place. Oberhuemerand Ulich (1997) estimate that parental feesaccount for between ten and fifteen percent of operating costs. Individual Statessubsidise some places and these areallocated by local authorities (Keaveny,2002).

Since 1996, all children are entitled to aKindergarten place from the age of three.Although attendance at a Kindergarten isnot mandatory in Germany, the vastmajority of children spend at least some ofthe day in a childcare centre. However,Kindergartens provide only sessional carefor children. Spiess et al. (2003) note thatplaces at full day care facilities for childrenunder the age of three are limited andchildren of single parent families havepriority. In West Germany, in 1998, onlyabout twenty per cent of places available inKindergarten were full day care places(Spiess et al., 2003). There are significantlymore childcare places for children underthe age of three in Eastern Germany(Kreyenfeld et al., 2000).

6.2.4 Delivery Strategies

Most institutions are run by non-profitproviders and are heavily subsidised by thelocal community and the federal State. InWestern Lander, about 70 per cent of allchildcare and early educational services arerun by voluntary agencies, mainly religiousand humanistic organisations, while about30 per cent are run by local authorities(Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997). In EasternLander, the majority of services are run bythe municipalities (Lindon, 2000). Publicauthorities are required to establishfacilities where appropriate provisioncannot be made by other bodies (Keaveny,2002).

There are only a limited number of privatechildcare institutions in Germany but these

13 The Standing Conference of State Ministers of Educationand Cultural Affairs (Conference of Education Ministers(KMK) - for short) is an organization of the stateministers/senators responsible for education, colleges anduniversities, research, and cultural affairs.

Chapter 6

Germany

74

do not receive public subsidies (Kreyenfeldet al., 2000). Keaveny (2002:130) suggeststhat in recent years "…the legislator hasgiven priority to provisions offered by theprivate sector bodies in the field of pre-school education."

6.3 Defining Quality

6.3.1 Regulations

In Germany, quality is generally regulatedat the State level with a focus on structuralfeatures such as staff-child ratios, groupsize or building standards (Kreyenfeld etal., 2001). The private non-subsidisedsector is not regulated nationally inGermany (although low-income parentsmust use provision approved by the localauthority to be eligible for subsidy).

The Child and Youth Services Act (1990)states that family day care providers do nothave to seek permission from theJugendamt (youth office providingstatutory youth services), provided they donot care for four or more children,including their own. A registeredTagesmutter (family day care provider) cancare for up to six children. If the family daycare provider is subsidised, then theprovider must be registered and mayundergo assessment by the Jugendamt:

Land laws have the power to specifyand regulate childcare services withinthe framework of the Act, for exampleto set the circumstances that warranteligibility for subsidy and also theamount, which is paid directly to thechildcare provider rather than theparents. (Gelder, 2000:44-45)

6.3.2 Curriculum

In terms of curriculum, Keaveny (2002)notes that there are guidelines contained inthe 1990 Child and Youth Welfare Actwhich Lander adapt according to theirlegislation. Furthermore, Keaveny

(2002:131) states that:

…there is no centrally prescribedcurriculum. The body responsible forthe establishment defines itseducational principles jointly withstaff and the parents, on the basis ofthe essential educational aims of theKindergarten and their ownphilosophical, religious oreducational principles.

6.4 Measuring Quality

6.4.1 Inspection

Childcare services run by voluntaryagencies are inspected by State authorities(Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997). In Lander,assessment of family day care providers(usually those providers registered) arecarried out by the Jugendamt (Gelder,2000).

6.4.2 International Child Care andEducation Project (ICCE)

The ICCE project examined quality incentre-based ECCE programmes forchildren aged three to six across fivecountries, including Germany (Tietze et al.,1996). Data was collected in 1993-1994 andboth the ECERS and the CIS were used toobserve process quality in pre-schoolclassrooms (Tietze et al., 1996). InGermany, 69 per cent of classroom hadECERS scores that lay between minimaland good and 29 per cent of classroomshad ECERS scores that lay between goodand excellent. Overall, a higher proportionof German pre-school classrooms achievedscores between minimal and good andbetween good and excellent than pre-schoolclassrooms in the United States and Spain.Tietze et al. (1996) also suggest that thevariation in quality found in the pre-schools in Germany was in part a reflectionof the two different systems of ECCE thatexisted prior to reunification.

Chapter 6

Germany

75

This study also examined the relativeimportance of groups of marker variablesin the ECERS scale in determining qualityin different countries. One dimensionexamined in this regard was the dimensionlabelled "personalised care", whichincluded variables from the ECERS scalesuch as item one (greeting and departing),item four (diapering/toileting), item five(personal grooming), item eight(furnishings for relaxation and comfort)and item nineteen (scheduled times forgross motor activity). High scores on itemone indicated that children were greeted ina warm and personalised manner. A highscore on item four and five indicated aconcern for personal care as an individuallearning experience, while a high score onitem eight demonstrated personalised carefor children by providing soft furnishings.Scheduled time for gross motor activity wasviewed in a negative way, as scheduling isin contrast to a more informal relaxedenvironment, seen as conducive topersonalised care. Of the five countriesincluded in this study, Germany had thesecond highest score on this dimension,suggesting that personalised care was animportant component of quality inGermany.

Another dimension examined by Tietze etal. (1996:467) was the dimension labeled"…availability and use of space andmaterial…" ECERS variables included inthis dimension included item seventeen(gross motor space), item eighteen (grossmotor equipment), item twenty-four (sandand water), item twenty-eight (space to bealone) and item twenty-nine (free play).Tietze et al. (1996) note that the high scoreson each of these items was closely relatedto the availability of space and theprovision of physical resources for learningand play. Germany was the country to scorehighest in this dimension, suggesting thatGerman pre-schools perform well on theseaspects of quality. Mooney et al. (2003)suggest that these results reflect the factthat physical space is organised in Germanpre-schools to allow for free choice and

exploration, rather than emphasising groupactivities.

Cryer et al. (1999) examined the structuralfactors that were most significant inpredicting process quality across fivecountries. They note that the:

…strongest correlates of ECERSscores in Germany included aspositive predictors teacher tenure,teacher-child ratios, group size, andphysical size and as negativepredictors teacher experience,enrollment size, hours open anddirector experience. (Cryer et al.,1999:349)

Cryer et al. (1999) note that the strongestpredictor of quality in the German contextwas adult-child ratios.

6.5 Supporting Quality

6.5.1 Training

A wide diversity of training exists inGermany for those working in the ECCEsector. There is no national agreementregarding training, though there areframework guidelines. There are three maintypes of professional training available,Erzieherinnen (educators),Kinderpflegerinnen (nursery auxiliaryworkers) and Sozialpadagoginnen (socialpedagogues). According to Oberhuemerand Ulich (1997), educators are the largestgroup, accounting for 55.9 per cent of allthose working in ECCE settings. Educatorsare not trained exclusively to work inKindergarten but are trained to work in avariety of socio-pedagogical settingsincluding Kindergartens, day nurseries,parents co-operatives, school age childcare,youth centres, youth organisations andyouth hostels, children's wards andresidential care settings. Educatorsundertake training at vocational collegesspecialising in social pedagogy. About 60per cent of these colleges are State run and

Chapter 6

Germany

76

the remaining 40 per cent are mainlyattached to religious organisations.

About one quarter of those embarking ontraining have already completed some formof vocational training or have beenemployed; the remainder complete a one ortwo year practicum. Training takes threeyears to complete. Nursery auxiliaryworkers undertake two years training at avocational school. Social pedagogues aretrained with social workers and completebetween four and four and a half years oftraining. The first two years of study isfocused on general studies in the areas ofsocial work and social pedagogy. Followingthis, students specialise in one particulararea such as childcare. Training inGermany is therefore broad based andextends beyond the ECCE sector.Oberhuemer and Ulich (1997:105-106) notethat:

This calls for a form of training whichallows on the one hand for generalstudies in the field, and on the otherfor specialization and in-depth studyin one or two chosen fields, coupledwith strategies for transferring thisknowledge to other fields of work.

They also observe that a better developedsystem of in-service education and advisorysupport is needed.

Training for family day care providers isoften provided by the German family daycare association, funded jointly by thefederal State and individual Lander(Gelder, 2000). There is a recognition ofthe importance of training for the provisionof quality childcare and in 1993, theGerman government financed a scheme"Qualification of Tagesmutter in RuralAreas." This scheme was focused on theStates of East Germany (Gelder, 2000) andwas an attempt to fill emerging gaps in daycare provision and provide an incomesource for women. Gelder states that in oneGerman Lander (Rostock), two trainingcourses commencing in 1997 were provided

free of charge to family day care providerswith the assistance of the family day careassociation. One of these courses provided100 hours of training to trained childcareworkers (many of whom had workedpreviously in public day care facilities priorto reunification) and one course providing180 hours of training for those with noformal childcare training.

6.5.2 Early Excellence Centre

The Schillerstraße Child and Family Centreis an Early Excellence Centre in Germany,established in association with the PenGreen Centre in England. Early ExcellenceCentres integrate teaching, care andeducation for the whole family into onecentre. The Schillerstraße Child andFamily Centre is studying ways in which itmight implement the guiding principle of'integrative family involvement inKindergartens'. This involves gettingparents involved in the education anddevelopment of their children,acknowledging parents as experts andredesigning Kindergartens as centres wherechildren, parents and staff learn together.

The Pestalozzi-Fröbel-Haus14 (PFH)consists of eleven Kindergartens, a trainingcentre for teachers, a neighbourhood andfamily centre and social projects for youngpeople. The PFH hopes to incorporate theexperiences of this Early Excellence Centremodel into its own training centres and topublish material regarding the project.

6.5.3 Parental Involvement

Since 1990, all Kindergartens are requiredto establish a parents' committee with theaim of increasing parental participation inpublicly funded services (Lindon, 2000).

14 For more information on the Pestalozzi-Fröbel-Haus, visithttp://www.pfh-berlin.de/english/1/history.html

Chapter 6

Germany

77

6.5.4 Frankfurt KindergartenProgramme

The Frankfurt Kindergarten Programmewas initiated in response to the programmeof expanding pre-school provisionundertaken in the 1990s (Penn, 2000). Thisbuilding programme was embarked uponas part of the celebrations to commemoratethe 1200th anniversary of the city and wasbased on a belief that Kindergartens weresymbols of contemporary life and living.Since the programme began, twelveKindergarten have been completed, nineare under construction and there are plansfor a further nine (Burgard, 2000).

In designing the Kindergartens, architectshad to fulfil certain criteria. EachKindergarten had to accommodate at leastfour group rooms and a kinderhort (AfterSchool Care) (Penn, 2000). Both facilitieshad to have spaces that were exclusive tochildren, where children could play orretreat from adults. A large hall orcommunal space was also to be included inthe design of each building. This project ledto a series of innovative designs includingone Kindergarten designed as a small townwith houses, a bridge, a street and a square(Burgard, 2000). Another Kindergartenwas designed along the lines of a fairytalecastle, with the entire building covered by ameadow on the roof planted with trees.Another was designed with graduatedterraces over four stories, to compensatefor the lack of open space.

Penn (2000) makes a number of key pointsin relation to this building programme.Firstly, the building programme recognisedthe important social function played byECCE institutions and celebrated it.Secondly, the building programme was verywell funded. Thirdly, many of theKindergartens were located in low costhousing estates and in areas with a highproportion of immigrants. Fourthly, allKindergartens incorporated someecological features such as growing roofsand solar heating while all had access to anoutdoor playspace. This building

programme recognized the importance ofthe space that children occupy on a dailybasis and tried to create a spaceappropriate for children.

6.5.5 National Quality Initiative

A National Quality initiative was launchedin Germany in 2000. Under this initiative"…quality indicators are to be developed ina joint research venture across the federalsystem and across a variety of providers."(Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, SeniorCitizens, Women and Youth, 2000:2)

A variety of different initiatives have beenembarked upon under this programme.Two projects are focused on developingquality indicators and practical assessmentprocedures for evaluating the pedagogicalwork with children aged birth to six. Theseprojects aim to develop a basic set ofquality indicators for work with childrenfrom birth to six years, to developassessment procedures for self-evaluationand internal quality assurance strategiesand to develop an instrument for theexternal evaluation of quality. As a product,this project aims to produce accessible,flexible and relatively low cost printedmaterial which will be easily available toECCE institutions for self-evaluation andinternal quality development procedures.

6.5.6 Research

Several pieces of research in Germany haveexamined the impact of quality childcare onchildren's outcomes. One early study inGermany (Tietze, 1987) employedsecondary data analysis to look at theeffects of the regional provision ofKindergarten places on schoolachievement. Findings indicated a positiverelationship between ECCE programmesand school achievement, as measured bygrade retention and special educationplacement. However this study looked atdata for only one German State (NorthRhine-Westphalia).

Chapter 6

Germany

78

Spiess et al. (2003) highlight the results ofa study carried out by Tietze et al., (1996),which analysed the characteristics ofquality in more than 400 Kindergarten.Results of this study demonstrated apositive relationship between quality ofcare and a child's cognitive and socialperformance. A follow up study of thecross-national analysis of ECCE across fourcountries was carried out by the ECCEstudy group in 1999. This study analysedthe longitudinal effects of Kindergartenquality on child outcomes:

The results of this study indicate thatthe quality of ECP's after controllingfor effects of child characteristics andcharacteristics of educational qualityin families during the pre-schoolphase, accounts for 1 to 15 percent oninter-individual differences in thedifferent measures of cognitive/schoolachievement and socio-emotionaldevelopment of 8 year olds. (Spiess etal., 2003:7)

Speiss et al. (2003) examined therelationship between community basedECCE programmes in the former WestGermany and children's seventh gradeplacement in more or less academicallydemanding schools. In all German States,parents choose between three differenttypes of secondary school which begin withthe fifth grade, Gymnasium (universityentry level high school), Realschule (six orseven years of schooling) and Hauptschule(five to six years of schooling). This choiceof secondary schools has an importanteffect on the life chances of the student,determining whether or not the studentattends university and affecting thestudents' future labour market chances.Spiess et al. (2003) found that 41 per centof children without Kindergartenexperience compared to 64 per cent ofchildren who attended Kindergartenattended Realschule or Gymnasium at age14. Speiss et al. (2003) also found that 51per cent of immigrant children who hadsome Kindergarten experience attended

Realschule or Gymnasium, compared to 21per cent or immigrant children with noKindergarten experience. One of the mostimportant conclusions of the study is that:

…having attended Kindergarten carein West Germany significantly raisesthe probability of being placed into ahigher educational level of school.(Speiss et al., 2003:18)

6.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

Particular importance is attached toproviding early assistance to children withdisabilities. Two types of establishmentfulfill this function: Sonderkindergärten(which are sometimes known asFörderkindergärten) care for and supportchildren with disabilities only andintegrative Kindergarten take care ofchildren with and without disabilities(Kultusministerkonferenz, Accessed at:http://www.kmk.org/dossier/dossier_2002/3_preschool_2002.pdf, July 23rd,2004). Penn (2000:86) comments thatmany children with disabilities aresegregated into separate provision inGermany and that "…there is no attempt toconsider disabled access or any otherbuilding features that reflect the needs ofthe disabled."

Some Länder have established so-calledVorklassen (pre-school classes) for five-year-olds who have not reached compulsoryschooling age but whose parents wish themto receive assistance with their preparationfor primary school. Attendance ofVorklassen is voluntary and children inthese services learn through play.

Chapter 6

Germany

79

6.7 Implications forIreland

6.7.1 Regulation

Though overall responsibility for ECCE lieswith the central government in Germany,under national legislation, individual Statesare empowered to enact their ownlegislation. This means that there isconsiderable variability in the legislativeand administrative structures for pre-school education between the differentfederal States, regarding structural aspectsof quality such as premises, staff-childratios and group size. These regulations donot cover private, non-subsidised childcareservices.

6.7.2 Staffing

There is no single qualification required ofpractitioners working in ECCE setting.More than half of the practitioners workingin ECCE settings hold a three-year tertiaryqualification designed to preparepractitioners for a variety of socio-pedagogical settings, including a variety ofECCE settings, youth organisations andresidential childcare settings.

6.7.3 Inspection

State authorities inspect childcare Servicesthat fall within the remit of the State'sregulations.

6.7.4 Parents

The importance of parental participationfor high quality ECCE is recognised inGermany and all Kindergarten are requiredto establish a parents committee with theaim of increasing parental participation inpublicly funded services.

6.7.5 Research

In Germany, a variety of diverse initiativesexploring different ways in which the

quality of ECCE can be improved have beenlaunched. This includes the establishmentof an Early Excellence Centre, based on themodel of the Pen Green Early ExcellenceCentre in England. In addition, twoprojects focused on developing qualityindictors and practical assessmentprocedures for evaluating pedagogical workcarried out with children have beeninitiated. An integral part of these projectsis the development of resources that will beeasily accessible for ECCE institutions forself-evaluation and internal qualitydevelopment procedures.

6.7.6 Special Needs

Providing early assistance to children withspecial needs is identified as important inGermany. While some children with specialneeds are integrated, many children withspecial needs are segregated into pre-schools, which only care for and supportchildren with special needs.

6.7.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from Germany, anumber of features of quality can beidentified which are worth considering inthe development of the NFQ for Ireland:

There is no national co-ordinatedframework for ECCE in Germany,leading to considerable variability inpre-school education between thedifferent federal States.

Quality is defined in terms of structuralfeatures and individual States regulateand inspect for structural aspects ofquality.

The importance of parentalparticipation is recognised and all pre-schools are required to establish aparents' committee.

A number of initiatives, designed toexplore ways in which quality can beimproved have been launched and aninnovative building programme has

Chapter 6

Germany

80

focused attention on the importance ofthe childcare environment indetermining high quality in ECCE.

While some children with special needsare integrated in settings, others aresegregated into pre-schools designed tosupport their needs.

81

New Zealand

Terms UsedA'oga Fa'asamoa Samoan Immersion

Education

Kohanga Maori LanguageImmersion Centres

Tagata Pasefica Pacific Islands EarlyChildhood Centres

Te Reo Maori The Maori Language

Te Whariki New ZealandCurriculum

Ti Kanga Maori Customs and traditionshanded down overgenerations

7.1 Introduction

Quality has emerged as an overarchingconcern in the ECCE sector in NewZealand. May (2002b) cites governmentagencies such as the Early ChildhoodDevelopment Unit and the Ministry ofEducation becoming more proactive asregards quality in ECCE in the 1990s. Atthe same time, the last decade of thetwentieth century was characterised by arolling back of the State and the adoptionof a non-interventionist stance by thegovernment in terms of ECCE (Dalli,2003). Dalli suggests that this non-interventionist stance was linked to adecline in quality of ECCE. According toDalli (2003), many of the developmentsdesigned to improve the quality of ECCEsuch as the curriculum, the code of ethicsand the proposal for the future direction ofECCE emerged from the sector. These werea response to the non-interventioniststance of the government and the result ofevidence which suggested that:

New Zealand's early childhoodservices could be doing better in theoverall provision of quality. (EarlyChildhood Education Project, 2000:7)

Chapter 7

Chapter 7

New Zealand

82

Dalli (2003) suggests that thesedevelopments were most successful whenthey aligned with government policy.

7.2 Context for Quality

7.2.1 Philosophy

In reviewing developments in the ECCEsector in New Zealand, May (2002b)identifies three different politicalperspectives which have influencedgovernment rationale for interest andinvestment in ECCE in the twentiethcentury; the age of psychology, the age ofequity and the age of quality. According toMay (2002b:7):

… the emphasis from government wasto encourage and/or require centresto establish policies, systems andprocesses for achieving "qualityoutcomes" for children.

7.2.2 Policy

In New Zealand, the policy making locus isnational and it is the Ministry of Educationthat provides the overall policy frameworkfor ECCE. In 1986, administrativeresponsibility for all childcare services wastransferred from the Department of SocialWelfare to the Department of Education(Everiss and Dalli, 2003), which providesthe funding available for ECCE services.The Educational Review Office (ERO)monitors childcare provision to ensureaccountability and the Early ChildhoodDevelopment Unit provides advice and in-service training. The Early ChildhoodDevelopment Unit was integrated with theMinistry of Education in October 2003.

7.2.3 Funding

New Zealand utilises supply and demandfunding subsidies (Candappa et al., 2003).ECCE is funded by a mixture ofgovernment funding and parental fees

(Clearinghouse, 2003a). Research suggeststhat the mixed funding model means that:

…family income (does) not seem to bea deciding factor in children's accessto good quality early childhoodeducation. (Wylie, 1996:22)

Most funding comes from a grant-in-aid toservices (Petrie et al., 2003), known as bulkfunding, paid by the Ministry of Education.Funding is paid on the basis of type ofservice, the quality standard met and theages of the children enrolled (Ministry ofEducation, 2003b). In 2004, the bulkfunding formula comprises four fundingrates, based on an amount per child perhour, differentiated on the basis of whetherthe child is over two years or under twoyears.

The child per hour funding rates applicablefrom the 1st July 2004 are:

Rate 1 - the base-funding rate for alllicensed and chartered servicesexcluding Kindergartens is $5.70 perhour per child for children under theage of two and $2.86 per hour per childfor children over the age of two;

Rate 2 - a higher rate is paid tochartered services that meet standardshigher than licence requirements forstaff-child ratios and staff qualifications.$6.51 per hour per child for childrenunder two years and $3.26 per hour perchild for children two years and over;

Rate 3 - $4.23 per child-place per hourfor children enrolled in a Kindergarten.

Rate 4 - for licence-exempt centres is$1.18 for licence-exempt centres15 (NewZealand Government, Undated,Accessed at: http:///www.beehive.govt.nz/families/facts.cfm, July 15th,2004).

Services can claim funding for a maximumof six hours per child per day, with a limitof 30 hours per week (Ministry of

15 The exchange rate as of July 2004 was 1 New ZealandDollar = €0.53.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

83

Education, 2003b). A universal fundingformula forms the basis for direct grantfunding subsidies of chartered ECCEservices.

An income related Childcare Subsidy isavailable to parents of pre-school childrenunder five years of age (or under six forthose eligible for a Child DisabilityAllowance) using a form of licensedchildcare. Funding for license-exemptECCE centres is administered by the EarlyChildhood Development Unit (Ministry ofEducation, 2003b).

7.2.4 Delivery Strategies

Though ECCE is largely publicly funded,provision is delivered mainly through thecommunity and private sector. According toMeade and Podmore (2002), the majorityof childcare services in New Zealand arecommunity based and run by not-for-profitorganisations. May (2002b) notes thatthere is almost total reliance on the market-place of community and private endeavourfor provision. The Correspondence School,a State operated distance-learning service,is the main form of early childcareprovision owned by the government(Meade and Podmore, 2002).

Mitchell (2002) examined the differencesbetween privately owned and communityowned ECCE provision in terms of theprovision of quality education for children.Community owned centres were more likelyto employ a significantly higher proportionof staff with a teaching qualification and alower proportion of staff with no ECCEqualifications than privately ownedchildcare facilities. Administrative auspicewas also significant in terms of the ways inwhich overheads were reduced at a time ofdiminished government funding. Privatechildcare facilities were more likely toreduce overheads by making negativechanges to staff such as poorer ratios,bigger groups, redundancy, less in-servicetraining, by changing staff workingconditions, or by non-replacement of

equipment or buildings etc. Communitybased facilities were more likely to look forsavings in areas that kept staff andconditions intact (Mitchell, 2002).

There is concern in New Zealand aboutrelying primarily on the market as the keymechanism for meeting the needs ofparents and children, what Dalli (2003:5)calls the discourse of "…purchasingservices". Mitchell (2002) notes thatresearchers and commentators in NewZealand have been highly critical of themarket approach to ECCE during the1990s, with its assumption that markets arethe best way to raise quality and meet theneeds of families. For example, Smith andFarquhar (1994) are critical of the principleof parental choice, often the main policycomponent used to improve quality in aderegulated market. Under this principle,parents choose the type of centre that bestfits their values and needs and marketforces thereby determine the survival of anyparticular facility:

If parents have some knowledge andunderstanding of the things whichmake up good quality care andeducation and they have access tocentres which offer these things, thenthere is no problem with this theory.(Smith and Farquhar, 1994:137)

However the level of parents' knowledge ofindicators of high quality care andeducation can be questioned.

7.3 Defining Quality

7.3.1 Regulation

In New Zealand, one set of childcareregulations covers the full range of ECCEsettings (Ministry of Education, 2003b).Unless centres meet specific requirementsfor licence-exempt services, they arerequired to be licensed under the Education(Early Childhood Centres) Regulations(1998). Licensing regulations set minimum

Chapter 7

New Zealand

84

standards for premises, group size andminimum staffing numbers, programmes,curriculum, organisation and managementof early childhood centres (Ministry ofEducation, 2003b).

Family day care is regulated by theEducation (Home Based Care) Order whichis subsumed in the charter of the home-based service (Ministry of Education,2003b). The Order has a strong focus onstructural aspects of quality such ascaregiver-child ratios, network size, co-ordinator qualifications and requirementsfor visiting caregivers' homes (Everiss andDalli, 2003).

7.3.2 Charter

To be eligible for government funding,ECCE services are also required to bechartered (Ministry of Education, 2003b).The Charter system was a governmentdirected reform introduced in New Zealandin the late 1980s. The charter was definedas:

…a contract between the Ministry ofEducation and the individual centre,drawn up through consultation withparents and the community. Charterdocuments contain an outline ofcentre policies, philosophies andcharacteristics. They are required tospecify in what ways and how theindividual centre intends to worktowards standards of higher qualitythan the minimum licensing level. Thecharter is a quality assurancemechanism for the government.(Farquhar, 1991:526)

The charter allowed for the inclusion ofresearch-based criteria of quality(structural aspects of quality) determinedat a national level alongside the values,culture and philosophy of individualservices:

The concept of the charter was tomaintain the diversity of programs,

philosophies, and cultural values thatexisted in the New Zealand earlychildhood programmes whileensuring a national standard ofquality child care. (Golberg, 1999:11)

The importance of the Treaty of Waitangi16,cultural survival and other cultural valueswas recognised in the Charter system andconsultation with staff, parents and thecommunity was seen as central in thedevelopment of the charter (Smith andFarquhar, 1994).

Initially the charter was to meet NationalGuidelines, which were set out in theManagement Handbook distributed to allcentres. These guidelines covered nineareas including Charter and ReviewProcedures, The Learner, Special NeedsChildren, Health, Safety and Equity, StaffDevelopment and Advisory Support andLand and Buildings (Smith and Farquhar,1994). Each area stated a non-negotiableprinciple and described what should beincluded in a centre's plan of work to meetthis principle. The National Guidelines setdown standards in areas such as staffing,curriculum, value issues and advisorysupport. These standards were higher thanthe minimum licensing standards. It wasintended that centres that met minimumlicensing standards and had a Chartercommitting them to higher standardswould be eligible for additional governmentfunding (Smith and Farquhar, 1994:126).

In 1989, shortly after the introduction ofthe charter system a change in governmentresulted in what Smith and Farquhar(1994:126) termed "…some major losses,all of which impact on the achievement ofhigher quality". The ManagementHandbook was replaced by "The Statementof Desirable Objectives and Practices"

16 The Treaty of Waitangi, was signed in 1840 in connectionwith the early settlement of Aotearoa, New Zealand. It wasdesigned to protect governance, treasured sites and objectsand land for Maori, and establish British rule for Pakehasettlers. The Treaty sets out overarching obligations andprinciples of partnership between the Maori people and latersettlers in this country.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

85

(DOPs). This was a less stringent and lessprescriptive document, which removed therequirements to meet higher thanminimum standards and the requirementto involve stakeholders in the writing of thecharter (Golberg, 1999). For example, therewas no mention of staff-child ratios in theDOPs (Smith and Farquhar, 1994). Onlyminimum standards were required toobtain funding.

Smith and Farquhar (1994) identify severalareas where the implementation of thecharter had a positive effect on quality inECCE services. Quality in terms of somestructural features, such as ratios,improved. For centres, the process ofdeveloping a charter highlighted awarenessof some of the value issues central to theMeade report (Meade, 1988) such asbiculturalism and equity. It encouragedcentres to formulate their own values andgoals and to implement practices thatreflected these values and goals. Self-reflection on the part of staff wasencouraged, as staff clarified and codifiedtheir practices and reflected on thephilosophy and values of their service.However:

…the incentive to upgrade to a higherquality than minimum standards waslargely removed with the introductionof the "Desirable Objectives andPractices"… (this) meant that many ofthe aspects of the charter which wereintended to promote quality havedisappeared. (Smith and Farquhar,1994:137-138)

7.4 Measuring Quality

7.4.1 Early Childhood EducationReview

The ERO monitors whether or not centresare meeting their charter requirements(Smith and Farquhar, 1994). An EarlyChildhood Education Review is an externalevaluation of the education and care

provided for children in all early childhoodeducation services (ERO, 2002a). There arethree main stages in the review process. Inthe first stage, a review team collectsinformation, including the written findingsfrom the services self-review, and discussesthe scope of the review with the servicemanager. In the second stage, the reviewteam visits the service and in the thirdstage, the review team prepares a report(ERO, 2002a). ERO reports outline whereservices are doing well, where they need toimprove and what steps should be taken toimplement these improvements (ERO,2002a). The external evaluation sees itselfas having two main roles; that ofaccountability and educationalimprovement (assessment and assistance).However, it should be noted that while theERO may be involved in the developmentof recommendations and the formulation ofaction plans, it has no involvement in theimplementation of these plans.

The framework for review utilised by theERO is based on four main strands:

The quality of education;

Additional review priorities;

Areas of specific government interestand;

Compliance issues (ERO, 2002b).

Strand A, the quality of education, dealswith the quality of the programme offered,the learning environment and theinteractions that take place there. Prioritiesfor this strand are based on informationprovided in the self-review (ERO, 2002b).During the review process, more time islikely to be spent on Strand A when it is notnecessary to focus on compliance issues(ERO, 2002b).

Issues such as the quality of educators andmanagement are investigated in Strand B.These issues are important because theyaffect the quality of education provided, buttheir influence may be less direct than thequality of the programmes themselves. Ithas been suggested that the ERO

Chapter 7

New Zealand

86

procedures for monitoring quality placesgreat emphasis on compliance withgovernment regulations to the detriment ofother process variables of quality (Hurstand Smith, 1995).

7.5 Supporting Quality

7.5.1 Curriculum

Te Whariki, the national ECCE curriculumframework designed to cover children fromthe time of birth to school entry, wasintroduced in 1996 (Ministry of Education,1996). Te Whariki is a Maori word meaning"…a woven mat for all to stand on…"; theuse of this work captures the idea thatlearning is a weaving of experiences (Dalli,2003:6). Te Whariki is designed torecognise and support the diversity of typesof ECCE provision that exists in NewZealand (Ministry of Education, 1996).Meade and Podmore (2002:31) describe TeWhariki as a "socio-cultural curriculum."The curriculum:

…emphasises the critical role ofsocially and culturally mediatedlearning and of reciprocal andresponsive relationships for childrenwith people, places and things.(Ministry of Education, 1996:9)

It is designed to form the basis for thecurriculum and programmes in allchartered services for children. Te Wharikioutlines principles, strands and goals,which are distinctively appropriate forECCE (Ministry of Education, 1996). In theintroduction to the revised DOPs, TeWhariki is endorsed as an example of aquality curriculum (Ministry of Education,1998). One of the aims of designing thecurriculum was to "…articulate aphilosophy of quality early childhoodpractice." (Carr and May, 2000:53).

Te Whariki is underpinned by the fourprinciples:

Empowerment;

Holistic development;

Family and community and;

Relationships (Ministry of Education,1996).

The strands describe five different areas oflearning and development:

Well-being;

Belonging;

Contribution;

Communication and;

Exploration (Ministry of Education,1996).

The goals provide clear direction for thelearning programmes built on theprinciples and strands (Ministry ofEducation, 2003b). For example, the strand'well-being' includes the goals:

Children experience an environmentwhere their health in promoted, theiremotional well-being is nurtured andthey are kept safe from harm.(Ministry of Education, 1996:15)

Te Whariki is designed to be inclusive andappropriate for all children and it isintended that children with additionalneeds will be integrated into childcareservices. An Individual Development Plan(IDP) or Individual Education Plan (IEP) isto be developed for any children thatrequire additional or alternative resourcesother than those usually provided within anECCE setting (Ministry of Education,1996). The Ministry of Education, (1996:11)asserts that the objectives of such plans"…will be realistic, useful, and of value tothe child and the family." The service is toprovide the equipment and activities thatmeet the objectives of the IDP/IEP.

Te Whariki emphasises the social andcultural context of children's learning andtwo distinctive contexts are specificallyidentified in the curriculum framework;Maori immersion programmes and the

Chapter 7

New Zealand

87

Tagata Pasefica programmes (PacificIslands early childhood centres). Thecurriculum framework highlights theimportance of meeting the needs of thesespecific groups and includes examples thatfocus on these specific contexts. All theprinciples, strands and goals of thecurriculum are designed to apply to allcontexts.

The curriculum can be seen as movingECCE in New Zealand away from thedevelopmental framework:

As centres have been faced with thechallenge of "weaving" their ownprogramme within the framework ofTe Whariki, a new terminology hasdeveloped about curriculumexperiences for children, rather thanactivities for children, based on theconcepts of well-being and belonging,contribution, communication andexploration rather than physical,intellectual, emotional and socialdevelopment. (Dalli, 2003:6-7)

An important aspect of the success of thecurriculum has been the governmentsupport for it. Carr and May (1998) notethat the government has provided fundingfor professional development focused on TeWhariki. According to Carr and May(1998:17), there have been issues aroundthe implementation of Te Whariki:

…the low regulatory environmentand funding levels make it difficultfor centres to meet the highexpectations of quality outlined in TeWhariki.

Carr and May (1998) suggest that theholistic and bicultural approach to thecurriculum may also be a challenge topractitioners who have traditionallyfocused on separate play areas andactivities. Carr and May (1998) also notethat the political climate has made moredemands on practitioners in relation tocurriculum assessment and evaluation.

They suggest that greater funding andregulatory control are required to improvequality:

The feedback suggests that toimplement Te Whariki fully requiresa larger and bolder investment bygovernment to support theinfrastructure of early childhood thanis currently available. Small increasesin funding have not been sufficient tooffset the costs of new quality criteria,and of concern are the number ofcentres that are not prepared to beginto climb the ladder of quality. (Carrand May, 2000:68)

Cullen (1996) has questioned whether the"soft" approach of Te Whariki can deliverquality provision, given the realities of anunder resourced and poorly trained sector.Professional development programmes inrelation to Te Whariki have been limited.The Government's Education Review Office(ERO) was also critical of Te Whariki.Reviewers employed by the ERO haveencountered difficulties in understandingand measuring the holistic strands,principles and goals of Te Whariki. Theirreport outlined the complexity of thecurriculum and observed that a high levelof training and/or guidance was necessaryfor implementation (ERO, 1998). The EROfound in a 1997 survey that sixteen per centof centres reviewed were lacking inconfidence to implement the curriculumwhile another 38 per cent needed toimprove (ERO, 1998).

The ERO found in a 1997 survey of 200childcare centres, 100 Kindergartens and100 playcentres that 7% of centres hadminimal awareness and use of Te Whariki,16% were aware of but had yet toimplement Te Whariki and 38% used TeWhariki as a base for their programmes,but they needed to improve one or more ofthe planning, implementation or evaluationprocesses (Educational Review Office,1998).

Chapter 7

New Zealand

88

During the 1990s, the New ZealandMinistry of Education funded severalresearch projects that worked to developframeworks for evaluation and assessmentbased on Te Whariki. These approacheshave attempted to respond to a newconception of a curriculum from a socio-cultural and ecological perspective, with anew approach to evaluation and assessmentthrough learning and teaching stories (Carrand May, 1998). Teaching and learningstories represent a narrative rather than askills approach to assessment andinnovation (Carr and May, 1998).

7.5.2 Learning Stories

The Project for Assessing Children'sExperiences (1995 - 1997) was designed toidentify key outcomes from Te Whariki andto work with practitioners across a range ofECCE settings in the development of arange of assessment ideas and proceduresthat would be useful in their work withyoung children (Podmore and Carr, 1999).There were three phases to the project; theestablishment of a framework forassessment, the piloting of this frameworkin five different ECCE settings and thedevelopment of a resource pack forpractitioners (Carr, 1998b).

In Te Whariki, children's learningoutcomes were outlined in two ways; asworking theories and as dispositions. Theframework for assessment nested the ideaof dispositions in the idea of workingtheories:

It looked for children's emergingworking theories about what it is tobe a learner and about themselves aslearners. And it developed the ideathat these working theories weremade up of packages of learningdispositions. (Carr, 1998b:15)

The framework focused on five broadlybased behaviours (or learning dispositions)and a number of observable criteria for

each of these behaviours. The learningdispositions included:

Finding something of interest;

Being involved;

Persevering with difficulty;

Expressing an idea or point of view and;

Taking another point of view (Carr,1998b:18).

Carr (1998b) notes that another way toview these dispositions is to see them as achain or package of decisions and actions toaccompany them, described as learningstories. The documentation of children'slearning was seen as central to the learningstories assessment approach and a four-part assessment approach was laid outdescribing, documenting, discussing anddeciding on progress.

In phase three of the project for assessingchildren's experiences, some resources forprofessional development programmes onassessment in ECCE settings weredeveloped (Carr, 1998a). Three videos andan accompanying booklet and overheadtransparencies were produced. The videosencourage practitioners to ask the followingquestions as they explore how to best weaveassessment into their curriculum (TeWhariki):

1. What should we assess? 2. Why should we assess it?3. How should we assess it?

The booklet provides guidelines for fourworkshops on assessment in ECCE settingsbased on the three videos:

1. What is assessment, what do wewant to assess?

2. Learning Stories is an example ofwhat to assess

3. Why assess, who are assessmentsfor?

4. How do we assess?

Chapter 7

New Zealand

89

7.5.2.1 Learning and Teaching Stories

Funded by the Ministry of Education, theproject for developing a framework for self-evaluation of ECCE programmes aimed toidentify the key elements of programmequality in relation to the strands and goalsof the curriculum Te Whariki (Podmoreand Carr, 1999). The project developed anassessment and evaluation frameworkcalled learning and teaching stories, whichcould be used to assess children andevaluate centre programmes. Central to theproject was the idea that the evaluation ofECCE programs should be grounded inquality from the child's perspective (Carr etal., 2000). The project focused onestablishing a structure for the evaluationof the five areas of development andlearning, as outlined in questionsemanating from the child:

Belonging - Do you appreciate andunderstand my interests and abilitiesand those of my family? (Do you knowme?)

Well-being - Do you meet my dailyneeds with care and sensitiveconsideration? (Can I trust you?)

Exploration - Do you engage my mind,offer challenges and extend my world?(Do you let me fly?)

Communication - Do you invite me tocommunicate and respond to my ownparticular efforts? (Do you hear me?)

Contribution - Do you encourage andfacilitate my endeavours to be part of awider group? (Is this place fair for us?)

In 1998, the project began a new phase,involving an action research trial whichcould be used as the basis for thedevelopment of resources for practitionerson assessment and evaluation (May andPodmore, 1998). Evaluation andassessment strategies based on thesequestions called action research tools weredeveloped and piloted across a range ofsettings in partnership with practitioners:

Practitioners in the centres chose a child'squestion, then selected, adapted, or devised

a self-evaluation action research tool forgathering data. They then observed,reflected, planned, and acted (in varyingorder). …it was intended that, in a cycle ofevaluation, the centre practitioners wouldput in place structures, systems andprocesses as appropriate to improve theimplementation of Te Whariki… These weredescribed as teaching stories. (Podmoreand Carr, 1999:7)

7.5.2.2 Implementing Te Whariki inPacific Island Centres

Mara (1998) examined the professionaldevelopment provisions for theimplementation of Te Whariki in PacificIslands Early Childhood Centres (PIECCs)and the current approaches used by PIECCsto assess children's learning and to evaluateTe Whariki implementation. Mara foundthat staff and management of most centresfelt confident in planning andimplementing Te Whariki strands.However, a particular challenge wasimplementing Te Whariki using their ownPacific languages and cultural values.Continuing concerns include meetingcurrent requirements, using theappropriate language and having sufficienttime for professional development. In2000, the Ministry of Education released'The Big Picture', the first video of a serieson Te Whariki (May, 2002a).

7.5.3 Early Childhood Development(ECD)

ECD was a government-funded agency thatprovided advice, support and informationabout early childhood education andparenting to ECCE providers, parents andthe wider community. ECD particularlyfocused on those less likely to avail of ECCEservices (Ministry of Education, 2003a).Furthermore, ECD provided support tolicence-exempt playgroups to provide ECCEin community settings. In October 2003,ECD was integrated into the Ministry ofEducation (Ministry of Education, 2003a).

Chapter 7

New Zealand

90

The ministry currently providesinformation on aspects of care andeducation such as the establishment of anECCE service, the running of an ECCEservice, parenting, playgroups and otherforms of ECCE centres (ECD, Accessed at:http://www.ecd.govt.nz/, 1st July, 2004).The support information and adviceservices previously offered by the ECD arenow provided by the Ministry of Education,which aims to help the sector achieve thegoals of Pathways to the Future (StrategicPlan of ECCE). An evaluation of two ECDServices in 2001 noted that there was sometension between the Ministry of Educationand the ECD, and that a commonframework of understanding of the rolesand responsibilities of each was needed(Mitchell and Mara, 2001).

7.5.4 The Quality Journey

Funded by the Ministry of Education,Hendricks and Meade (1999) developed aresource designed to assist ECCE servicesin New Zealand to develop qualityimprovement systems and undertakequality reviews. The guide was based on theconcepts and ideas from the government'sRevised Statement of DOPs, Quality inAction, and Te Whariki (Hendricks andMeade, 1999). The revised model proposeda process that included preparing for thereview, choosing an approach and settingstandards, gathering information, analysingand evaluating results, recommendingfuture actions, and acting to affirm, changeor abandon aspects to improve outcomes(Mitchell and Cubey, 2003). The QualityJourney included examples of qualityreviews, an extensive case study and ameasuring tool that services can use intheir reviews. The Quality Journey alsohighlights the conditions necessary tosupport the operation of the service, i.e.adult communication and collaboration andorganisational management (Mitchell andCubey, 2003).

There has been some criticism of thisreview process. Mitchell and Cubey (2003)

suggest that some of the examples providedin the review are somewhat mechanistic.For example, one quality indicator foreducator/child interactions with infants isdescribed as "Educators respond promptlyto infants when they express a need forattention." The indicator showed the nextstep to be agreeing on a definition for"promptly" and that "95 percent of infantcalls should have a prompt response." Thecrucial nature of the adult's response wasnot discussed in this example.

McLachlan-Smith et al. (2001) suggested anumber of improvements to The QualityJourney, including the inclusion of morecase studies and a greater emphasis ongoals. They also drew attention to theimportance of professional development inputting more emphasis on goals. Theparticipants also said that they would nothave used the document fully if they hadnot been involved in professionaldevelopment in conjunction with its use.

7.5.5 Quality Funding Policy

Since March 1996, licensed ECCE servicesreceive increased funding (Rate 2: a greaterthan the basic Ministry of Educationfunding rate) by meeting the Ministry'squality criteria in terms of standards higherthan licence requirements for staff-childratios or staff qualifications. However, theimpact of this funding has been limited asit is insufficient to cover the cost of theincrease in staff. Since 2002, thegovernment have also provided equityfunding for community-based ECCEservices meeting criteria related to lowincome, isolation and those providingservices in a language other than English.

There has also been some discussionaround opening up access to Rate 3funding, based on evaluation of structuraland process variables. A discussion paperon this topic stated that the:

Cabinet has agreed that indicators ofquality be developed with a view to

Chapter 7

New Zealand

91

possibly offering further incentivesfor increases in quality in the earlychildhood sector...It is envisaged thatindicators would be part of a processof improvement in quality in ECS,involving teachers, parents, andmanagement. (Meade and KerslakeHendricks, 1998:2)

Meade and Kerslake Hendricks (1998)suggested that structural variables wouldbe used as entry/application criteria forRate 3 for all types of Early ChildhoodServices (ECS) (including Kindergartens);that quality assurance systems based oncommon quality components would beadopted in ECCE services and that serviceswould be subject to an on site assessmentby an external evaluator. This evaluationwould check on criterion referencedindicators focused on learning processesand learning and teaching interactions.Meade (1999) noted that if the proposalbecame:

…public policy, differential fundinglevels will become the norm, withhigh quality ECS attracting thehighest level of government funding,good quality ECS getting a modestlevel of funding, and good-enoughquality ECS getting the base rate.(Meade, 1999:20)

Meade (1999) notes that the principlebehind this proposal received a great dealof support from the ECCE sector.

7.5.6 Code of Ethics for the Sector

Dalli (2003) identifies the code of ethicsdeveloped concurrently with the first draftof Te Whariki as one way in which thesector sought to promote high quality. Thiscode of ethics was seen as one way "…forthe sector to take the initiative to make apublic statement about the sector'scommitment to high quality standards."(Dalli, 2003:9) The code of ethics consistsof sixty values that underpin professional

practice and was adopted by the largestunion for ECCE staff in 1996. Subsequently,others in the sector have also adopted it.

7.5.7 Future Directions- SupportingQuality

Initiated by the New Zealand EducationalInstitute, the ECCE sector in New Zealandcame together in 1996 to develop astatement on the future development ofECCE in New Zealand (Early ChildhoodEducation Project, 2000). Thisdevelopment:

…arose out of the frustration of the sectorwhich, by the mid-90s, became convincedthat government could not be trusted tomove forward the sector's agenda ofensuring quality across the differentservices. (Dalli, 2003:10)

Future Directions articulated the sectors'proposals for the development of ECCE andcontained recommendations on thestructures and funding required to deliverhigh quality educational services for youngchildren (Early Childhood EducationProject, 2000). According to Dalli (2003),these proposals formed the basis for unioncampaigns in the latter half of the 1990sand formed the basis of Labour's electionmanifesto for ECCE. Many of therecommendations were also adopted in theten-year strategic plan for ECCE.

7.5.8 Strategic Plan

According to Meade and Podmore(2002:25), the strategic plan for EarlyChildhood Education, Pathways to theFuture, set out four main future directionsfor the development of the sector. Theywere:

1. Increasing participation; 2. Engagement and access; 3. Collaborative relationships (to

support quality) and;4. Improved quality and sustainability

of services.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

92

The strategic plan acknowledges in orderfor children to benefit from ECCE,provision must be of high quality. Futureprogress will be focused on the attainmentof the goals set down in Pathways to theFuture (Ministry of Education, 2002). Theplan outlines strategies to improve thequality of ECCE by:

…improving the supply of qualityteachers, putting in place better ratiosand group sizes, improving processquality through legislating TeWhariki, and putting in placeongoing improvement systems andbetter professional development.(Early Childhood Education StrategicWorking Plan Group, 2001:19).

The strategic plan also suggests raisingfunding levels to promote high qualityECCE. To ensure that the overall goals ofthe strategic plan are achieved, two reviewshave been established; one examiningregulations in ECCE and the other lookingat funding of ECCE. Another developmentemerging from the strategic plan has beenthe integration of ECD within the Ministryof Education.

7.5.9 Quality Register

The Quality Register is an accreditationsystem developed by the New ZealandChildcare Association (New ZealandChildcare Association, 2004), wherebymembers of the organisation can seekaccreditation as Quality Early ChildhoodEducation and Care Centres. Accreditationinvolves assessment of a range of qualityindicators across eight quality standards.These are:

1. Staff-child ratios; 2. Staff practices and qualifications; 3. Group size; 4. Safe and healthy environments; 5. Curriculum, 6. Ti kanga Maori (customs and

traditions handed down overgenerations);

7. Family and culture and;

8. Management.

7.5.10 Training

There is consensus in New Zealand thatwell qualified staff is essential for theprovision of a high quality ECCE. The EarlyChildhood Development Unit (1996) citedstaff training as one of eleven qualityindicators for ECCE. In 1999, anannouncement by the governmentreaffirmed that the Education (EarlyChildhood Centres) Regulations (1998) andthe Education (Home Based Care) Order1992 required persons responsible and co-ordinators to hold a qualificationrecognised by the Secretary of Education.An article in the Education Gazette statedthat:

From 1 January 2002, coordinatorsand persons responsible will require adiploma or degree in early childhoodteaching and two years experience inan early childhood education setting.(Education Gazette, cited in Podmoreet al., 2000:52)

The Secretary for Education currentlyrecognises the Diploma of Teaching (ECE),the Bachelor of Teaching (ECE) or theNational Diploma of Teaching (ECE) assuitable qualifications for co-ordinators andothers in positions of responsibility. Thismove to ensure all teachers in a position ofresponsibility have at least a Diploma inTeaching is seen as the first step in layingdown a benchmark qualification for allECCE teachers (Podmore et al., 2000).

7.5.11 Professional Development

There are a number of providers offeringprofessional development programmes inNew Zealand. The Ministry of Educationprovides professional development andsupport to licensed and chartered services,focused on the effective implementation ofTe Whariki, the 1998 DOPs, SpecialEducation 200017 and The Quality

Chapter 7

New Zealand

93

Journey. Three approaches to professionaldevelopment have been developed by theMinistry of Education:

1. A basket of general learning forlicensed and chartered centres;

2. A basket of Maori learning forlicensed and chartered Maoriimmersion centres and;

3. A basket of learning for charteredPacific Island centres. (Ministry ofEducation, Accessed at:http://www.ecd.govt.nz/running/profdev/profdev.html, 15th July, 2004).

These professional developmentprogrammes are based on a participatorylearning model using action research andan action learning process.

McLachlan-Smith et al. (2001) evaluated aprofessional development project designedto help ECCE centres implement TheQuality Journey and quality self-review.Over the course of a year, four full-dayworkshops were held which focused on howto design self-review projects on teaching,learning and development, adultcommunication and collaboration andorganisation and management. A particularconcern was to ensure that the programmewas participatory and involved thedevelopment of practical skills. It also wentbeyond The Quality Journey in that itprovided participants with methods ofcollecting views and data. In addition to theworkshops, a project support person visitedeach centre twice during the year, to assistwith design or implementation of thereview projects. The evaluation found thatparticipants felt better prepared toimplement self-review following theprofessional development programme andfelt their knowledge and skills about thespecific topics covered were enhanced.Another key finding of the evaluation wasthat the use of practical tools andopportunity to try these out made a major

contribution to participants' views of thesuccess of the programme. Barriers toimplementing self-review includedinadequate staffing levels, having to bringstaff who did not attend the workshop onboard, resistance in play centres to self-review from some parents, motivatinguntrained staff and cultural barriers(McLachlan-Smith et al., 2001).

Depree and Hayward (2001) evaluated theimplementation of The Quality Journey asa resource. This included an in-servicecourse to provide information on theresources and how to implement a qualityreview, meetings with all participatingcentres and facilitators in each region andwhole team professional development, overfifteen hours per centre. Facilitatorssupported the process of implementing thecycle of the review process set out in TheQuality Journey by working alongsidecentre team members. The final evaluationsof The Quality Journey resourcehighlighted positive changes, includingawareness of teaching practices,participants being challenged to lift theirstandards, teams working together andenhanced problem solving. There weresome changes to the structures in centrese.g., changing rosters to ensureteachers/educators could be activelyinvolved with the children, introducingrolling morning teas to alleviate queuing,and systems developed to process resourcescontributed by parents. There were alsochanges in the interactions with children.For example, staff increased their use of tereo maori - the Maori Language. Onecentre adopted new strategies for guidingchildren's behaviour as opposed to reactingto inappropriate behaviour.

7.5.12 Research on Quality

Concern about quality in ECCE services inNew Zealand has been accompanied by aselection of government funded researchdesigned to form a basis for informedpolicy making. In 1993-1994, the Ministryof Women's Affairs and the Ministry of

17 Special Education 2000 is a policy initiative, which has anumber of separate initiatives and funding pools to providesupport to students with special needs.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

94

Education commissioned literature reviewson the topic of quality (Meade andPodmore, 2002) and research on quality ofchildcare provision for infants and toddlerswas also funded by the Ministry ofEducation (Smith 1996). The New ZealandCouncil for Educational Research provideda literature review in 2000, whichexamined aspects of quality in ECCE, withparticular reference to staff training.

A best evidence synthesis of thecharacteristics of professional developmentlinked to enhanced pedagogy and children'slearning in ECCE settings was completed inJuly 2003, funded by the Ministry ofEducation. Eight characteristics of qualityprofessional development are derived fromevidence of the processes and conditionsoperating in the programmes under review.Structural conditions supporting qualityprofessional development are alsodiscussed. Recommendations are made forfurther research and research accessibility(Mitchell and Cubey, 2003).

The Ministry of Education launched the"Competent Child Study" in 1992 to track asample of four year old childrenlongitudinally. This study focused on tencompetencies that are linked withsuccessful learning and with successfuleconomic and social participation,including communication, curiosity,perseverance, social skills with peers, socialskills with adults, individual responsibility,literacy, mathematics, logical problemsolving and motor skills (Wylie, 2001). Atage ten, the main findings suggest thatECCE has a lasting effect on children'scompetency levels and that the quality ofteacher support for children's learning andthe teachers' interactions with the childrenare particularly important (Wylie, 2001).

Another research project is looking atparent/whanau18 involvement in ECCEcentres (2002-2004). The project aims to

deepen understanding of involving parentsand family members, both male and femaleand parents from a variety of differentbackgrounds in ECCE services. (Mitchelland Cubey, 2003)

An evaluation of equity funding in ECCE(2002-2004) is being carried outcollaboratively by the New Zealand Councilfor Educational Research (NZCER) and TeKohanga Reo National Trust. Theevaluation is designed to assess the impactof ECCE equity funding. The evaluation willyield information about how much ECCEservices know about equity funding, needsin each funding area, and whether and howequity funding improves quality andparticipation. The research is intended toinform future policy developments. (NewZealand Council for Educational Research ,Accessed at: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/default.php?cPath=76&products_id=88,15th March 2004).

The Ministry of Education is undertakingresearch that seeks to better understandeffective practices in kohanga (Maorilanguage immersion centres), play centresand licence-exempt playgroups. Part of thisresearch involves the establishment of sixCentres of Innovation (Ministry ofEducation, Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexID=8304&indexparentid=8303,March 15th, 2004). These are selectedECCE services who are to receive additionalsupport to research and develop theirinnovative work with children. Forexample, Wilton Play centre is the focus ofa Centre of Innovation project (2003 -2006), using action research methods toinvestigate parent engagement and sustaina community of learners (Ministry ofEducation, Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=8464&indexid=8391&indexparentid=8304, 15th March, 2004). Therole of documentation in maintainingcontinuity and quality across play centresessions and between play centre and homeis being investigated.

18 Whànau are members of an extended family and itssupporting network who form a context for the care andguidance of a child. The term "whànau" takes in kinship tiesthrough whakapapa (genealogy) and people who cometogether for the same kaupapa (purpose).

Chapter 7

New Zealand

95

A'oga Fa'asamoa is a Samoan immersioneducation and care centre, the focus ofanother Centre of innovation project. A'ogaFa'asamoa uses a rich array of approachesto promote Samoan language and cultureand the children's cultural identity. It hasclose links with the school communities onsite, especially the bilingual Samoan classin the school for transition of children andto help maintain confident and competentbilingual speakers. The research will look atsmall groups of children with the sameteacher from the point of entry throughdifferent groups and spaces in the centreand into school. The effects on children'slearning, including learning Samoanlanguage and culture and of joint educator-child transitions will be studied. NewBeginnings Preschool is a Centre ofInnovation project offering school-hourseducation and care for infants, toddlers andyoung children. An art teacher has addedan exciting dimension to the curriculum,and the use of the project approach isstrengthening family-centre relationships.The visual arts are integrated into thecurriculum at New Beginnings Pre-schooland more meaningful educationalexperiences are offered to children andparents via the project approach to learningand teaching (Ministry of Education,Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=8458&indexid=8387&indexparentid=8304,15th March, 2004)

The action research will focus on the use ofthe visual arts and the project approach inpedagogical practice and their effects onchildren's self-esteem, confidence andlearning, and on parents' engagement intheir children's learning will be assessed.

7.5.13 Early Childhood DiscretionaryGrants Scheme

The Early Childhood EducationDiscretionary Grants Scheme is an annualallocation of planning and capital grantsmade to eligible early childhood educationservices. There are three separate funding

pools; one for general services, one forservices targeted at Maori children and onefor services that provide educationalopportunities for Pacific Island children.

7.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

A new funding system "equity funding" wasintroduced in New Zealand in March 2002.Under the equity funding scheme,additional funds are made available forcommunity-based ECCE services meetingcriteria related to low income, isolation,and/or those services offering programmesbased on a language and culture other thanEnglish. The objectives of equity fundingare to:

1. Reduce educational disparitiesbetween different groups in NewZealand communities;

2. Reduce barriers to participationfaced by those groups that are underrepresented in ECCE services and;

3. Support ECCE services to raise theirlevel of educational achievement(Ministry of Education, EarlyChildhood Education EquityFunding - Questions and Answers.Accessed at:http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=6818&indexid=1038&indexparentid=1095#P23_645, 16thJuly, 2004)

In 2002, 1,334 services received equityfunding; 1,016 services received the fundingfor low socio-economic and special needs,460 services received it for isolation, and647 received it for services in anotherlanguage and culture other than English,including sign language (Ministry ofEducation, Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=6819&indexid=1038&indexparentid=1095, August 10th, 2004).

Chapter 7

New Zealand

96

New Zealand has an inclusive ECCEintervention programme where themajority of children with special needs arecatered for in regular ECCE programmes. Asmall number of children attend specialisedearly intervention services.

In the 1990s, work was undertaken in NewZealand to develop policy regardingchildren with disabilities and special needsresulting in the "Special Education 2000"policy (Adams and Hanley, 2000). Theaims of this policy are to improveeducational opportunities and outcomes forchildren with special needs in the ECCEand school sector, to ensure there is a clearconsistent and predictable resourcingframework for special education and toprovide equitable resourcing for those withsimilar needs, irrespective of school settingor geographical location.

Funding for Early InterventionProgrammes in the ECCE sector for thosewith disabilities or special needs isprovided in two parts. Funding is providedfor specialist services such as earlyintervention teachers, speech and languagetherapists, psychologists and advisors ofthe deaf. Direct funding support is allocatedseparately:

This resourcing in early childhood isbased on the child's support needswith regard to accessing the EarlyChildhood Curriculum. Theresourcing applies only toeducational support needs while othertherapy services are funded throughhealth. (Adams and Hanley, 2000:2)

An Early Intervention Programme is basedon the child's Individual Development Plan(IDP). This plan is drawn up following anassessment. According to Adams andHanley (2000), this process often usesassessment tools such as the CarolinaAssessment, Evaluation and ProgrammingSystems and the Hawaii Early LearningProgramme. The Early InterventionProgramme is family focused and thedrawing up of the IDP is based on a

partnership between the service providersand the family, and places the child in thewider context of the family and thecommunity.

According to Wylie (1996), the SpecialEducation 2000 policy expanded thenumber of students receiving some specialneeds support to around 5.5 percent of theschool population, and has improvedopportunities for some with special needs.However Whyle (2000:7) notes that:

…the division of the policy into anumber of separate funding pools hasmade it hard to offer students'parents and schools, the seamless,integrated services which work bestfor students with special needs.Contestability between thefundholders working with studentswith ongoing high and very highneeds has created fragmentation,gaps in accountability, andinequalities of resourcing andopportunity for students with specialneeds.

Whyle (2000:7) was also critical of theprofessional development provideddescribing it as:

…patchy, focusing on the policy itselfand the new support service ofResource Teachers of Learning andBehaviour, but with little availablefor specialist teachers and teacher-aides..

7.7 Implications forIreland

7.7.1 Co-ordination

In New Zealand, policy making for ECCEhas been located in the Ministry ofEducation. This ensures a co-ordinatedpolicy framework in the ECCE sector.Additionally, Early Childhood Developmentwas integrated into the Ministry of

Chapter 7

New Zealand

97

Education in October 2003. The role ofEarly Childhood Development was toprovide advice, support and informationabout ECCE and parenting to ECCEproviders, parents and the widercommunity. The Ministry of Education nowundertakes this. Additionally childcare andearly education is part funded by thegovernment on New Zealand, through theMinistry of Education. As a result policymaking, funding and the provision ofsupport, advice and information to bothparents and providers is the responsibilityof a single government department, thusensuring the effective co-ordination ofECCE services in New Zealand.

7.7.2 Regulation

The regulations for ECCE in New Zealandand the charter system highlight the level ofquality the government is prepared tosupport. These are designed for theinclusion of both structural and processfeatures of quality in the standards deemedacceptable by the government. Theregulations lay down the requirementsregarding the structural aspects of qualitysuch as premises, group size and minimumstaffing numbers, programmes, curriculum,organisation, and management of ECCEcentres. The Charter system allows servicesto determine process features of quality,based on the values, culture and philosophyof individual services. The Charter systemalso requires services to take account valuesthat have been defined as universal to allservices in New Zealand, such asbiculturalism and equity.

7.7.3 Inspection

External evaluation and review is themonitoring mechanism utilised by thegovernment of New Zealand to support andimprove quality in ECCE. The two aims ofthe review process carried out by the EROare assessment of the service and theprovision of assistance. This processincludes a self-review by the service andthis is a key component which provides the

priorities for the review process. Oncecompliance regarding minimumrequirements has been ensured, greaterfocus is placed on other process variables ofquality that are identified in the self-review.

7.7.4 Curriculum

The importance of an ECCE curriculum forsupporting quality is recognised in NewZealand. Te Whariki, the national ECCEcurriculum, is designed to form the basisfor programmes in all childcare institutionsand is designed to cover all children frombirth to school going age. It represents amove away from a developmentalframework, it is considered to be a socio-cultural curriculum, based on the values ofbiculturalism and equity. The curriculumoutlines principles, strands and goals whichare distinctively appropriate for the ECCEyears. There is a range of resourcesavailable to ECCE practitioners, whichprovide support in the implementation ofthe curriculum.

7.7.5 Supporting Quality

Developments in the ECCE sector in NewZealand have also highlighted theimportance of providing adequate supportfor any initiatives introduced for thepurpose of improving the quality in ECCE.For example, in relation to the curriculumTe Whariki, the government have fundedseveral professional developmentprogrammes. The ERO evaluates ECCEservices in relation to the curriculum.During the 1990s, the Ministry ofEducation funded several research projectsthat worked on the development offrameworks for the assessment andevaluation of the curriculum. Theseframeworks represent a narrative ratherthan a skills based approach to assessmentand innovation. An integral part of theseresearch projects was the development ofresources for practitioners. This includedthe development of resources forassessment and evaluation, forprofessional development programmes andaction research tools for practitioners.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

98

The Ministry of Education in New Zealandhas provided funding for the developmentof a review and evaluation guide (TheQuality Journey) intended to assist ECCEservices design quality improvementsystems and undertake quality reviews.This review and evaluation guide includedexamples of quality reviews, extensive casestudies and measuring tools that servicescan use.

The government make judicious use offunding in an attempt to improve qualitystandards in childcare services in NewZealand. A higher level of funding isprovided to services meeting higher thanminimum requirements in terms of one oftwo structural aspects of quality, staff-childratios and staff qualifications. Thegovernment also provides equity funding toservices meeting criteria regarding lowincome, isolation and those providingservices in languages other than English.

7.7.6 Voice of the Sector

One feature of the New Zealand ECCEsector is its strong voice and its concernwith quality. In the 1990s, the sector,concerned that the government could notbe relied on to move its agenda forward,undertook a number of developmentsindependent of the government. Thisincluded the formation of a Code of Ethics(a code of 60 values underpinningprofessional practice) and FutureDirections, a document laying out thefuture direction of the ECCE sector withrecommendations on the structure andfunding required for these developments.

7.7.7 Staffing

There is consensus in New Zealand thatwell qualified staff are essential for theprovision of a high quality service and thefirst steps have been taken in laying down abenchmark qualification for all thoseemployed in the ECCE sector. In the future,all early childhood teachers, ECCE co-ordinators and persons responsible will be

required to hold a diploma or degree inearly childhood teaching and two yearsexperience in an early childhood educationsetting.

7.7.8 Professional Development

Professional development is also recognisedas important in the provision of a qualityservice. There is evidence in New Zealandto suggest that the review and evaluationdocument "The Quality Journey" wouldnot have been fully utilised, were it not forthe implementation of professionaldevelopment programmes in connectionwith its use. The Ministry of Educationprovides professional developmentprogrammes focused on the effectiveimplementation of Te Whariki, the DOPand The Quality Journey. Professionaldevelopment programmes are based on aparticipatory learning model.

7.7.9 Special Needs and Disadvantage

Additional funding is available forcommunity-based ECCE services, meetingcriteria related to low income, isolation,and/or those services offering programmesbased on a language and culture other thanEnglish. An early intervention plan indrawn up for children with special needsand most children with special needs areintegrated into mainstream services.

7.7.10 Future Planning

Pathways to the Future, the strategic planfor ECCE acknowledges the centrality ofquality to any future developments of theECCE sector. This plan proposes a range ofstrategies to improve the quality of ECCE inNew Zealand, including improving thesupply of quality teachers, putting in placebetter group ratios and group sizes,legislating for aspects of process quality byimplementing Te Whariki and putting inplace ongoing improvement programmesand professional development programmes.

Chapter 7

New Zealand

99

7.7.11 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from New Zealand, anumber of features of quality can beidentified which are worth considering inthe development of a quality framework forIreland:

The literature gathered from NewZealand highlights the importance of aco-ordinated and integrated policyframework for ECCE.

Quality is defined at national level bothin terms of structural and processfeatures and in terms of theimplementation of a socio-culturalcurriculum. Resources developed inconjunction with the curriculum alsorepresent quality in terms of processfeatures. There is a focus on bothstructural and process features ofquality and on the implementation ofthe curriculum in the monitoring ofECCE services.

An evaluative approach to monitoringquality which includes the providers isadopted and this approach combinesassessment with the provision ofassistance and support to providers inraising the quality of the services theyoffer. Resources have been developedfor use by childcare providers for theself-evaluation and monitoring ofaspects of their service and such as theimplementation of the curriculum.

Developments that have taken place inthe ECCE sector in New Zealandhighlight the importance of theprovision of adequate supports for anyinitiatives introduced and designed toimprove the quality of care andeducation provided.

Developments designed to supportquality improvement in New Zealandhave been embarked upon inconsultation with the sector and apartnership approach to qualityimprovement is a feature of the ECCEsector.

Well-qualified staff is identified asessential in the provision of high qualityin the sector and a benchmarkqualification for those working in the

ECCE sector has been laid down.Professional development is alsorecognised as important and has beenprovided in relation the new qualitysupports that have been introduced tothe sector.

Additional funding is available forcommunity-based ECCE servicesmeeting criteria related to low income,isolation, and/or those services offeringprogrammes based on a language andculture other than English

Children with special needs areintegrated into ECCE services.

100

NorthernIreland

8.1 Introduction

According to the government's childcarestrategy, Children First, quality in ECCE inNorthern Ireland is currently founded upon"…registration, inspection, investigationand enforcement under the ChildrenOrder" (Department of Health and SocialServices [DHSS] in Association with theTraining and Employment Agency andDepartment of Education Northern Ireland[DENI], 1999:10).

8.2 Context for Quality

8.2.1 Philosophy

ECCE in Northern Ireland is viewed ashaving an important function in thesupport of families and children. Highquality childcare can provide opportunitiesfor children's development and can supportparents in caring for their children. Whileparents are seen as having the primaryresponsibility for the care and well-being oftheir children in Northern Ireland, theState acknowledges the role that ECCE canplay in supporting parents in this task.Childcare and early education is alsoidentified as important for the futureeconomic development of NorthernIreland:

The Northern Ireland economy willprosper if more skilled and capablepeople are able to take up jobsbecause they have access to goodquality, affordable and accessiblechildcare, and if children are wellequipped from an early age to makethe most of the learning opportunitiesavailable. (DHSS in Association withthe Training and Employment Agencyand DENI, 1999, Accessed at:

Chapter 8

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

101

http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/archived/childrenfirst.asp, 1st July, 2004).

ECCE in Northern Ireland is therefore seenas having three main functions; thepromotion of the well-being of children, theprovision of equal opportunities to parentsand the provision of supports to parents inbalancing work and family life.

8.2.2 Policy

Responsibility for ECCE is divided betweenthe Department of Education and theDepartment of Health and Social Services(DHSS), in line with the division betweeneducation and care services in the UK(OECD, 2000b). Responsibility for pre-school education lies with the Departmentof Education and responsibility for servicesproviding care for children lies with theDHSS. According to Children First (DHSSin Association with the Training andEmployment Agency and DENI, 1999), it isthe long-term goal of the government tointegrate the early education and careservices.

Five Education and Library Boards inNorthern Ireland are responsible fororganising publicly-funded schooleducation within their area. Pre-schools areinspected by the Education and TrainingInspectorate. Under Children First, aChildcare Partnership was established ineach Health and Social Services Board inNorthern Ireland, comprising of Voluntaryand Statutory Agencies with responsibilityfor implementing the government'schildcare strategy (Northern ChildcarePartnership, 2002). Health and SocialServices Trusts inspect services under theadministrative auspices of the DHSS.

8.2.3 Funding

The main form of subsidy for childcarecosts is demand funding (Candappa et al.,2003). For children aged from three

months to three years, provision is largelyin the private and voluntary sectors, andparents pay fees. Pre-school education (forchildren aged from three to four) iscurrently being expanded and developed inco-operation with the private and voluntarysectors. The pre-school educationexpansion programme is working towardsprovision of a full year of pre-schooleducation for every child whose parentswant it in the year prior to entry to formalschooling.

8.2.4 Delivery Strategies

Most childcare and early education inNorthern Ireland is supplied by privateproviders. Compulsory primary educationstarts at the age of four and this is providedby the State.

8.3 Defining Quality

8.3.1 Children Order (1995)

Under the Children Order (Her Majesty'sStationery Office [HMSO], 1995), Healthand Social Services Trusts are responsiblefor the registration and inspection of daycare services and childminding.Furthermore, they promote and encouragegood practice through the provision ofadvice and guidance to providers. Anychildcare facility or child minder providingcare for more than 2 hours in any one dayis required to be registered by law. SocialServices Early Years Teams assess theirsuitability in 3 key areas:

Premises - for health and safety;

Staff - via police, medical and socialservices checks to ensure individuals aresuitable to care for children;

Equipment and play environment - toensure that it is age appropriate safe andstimulating. (Children's ServicesNorthern Ireland, Accessed at: http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:iyL7DHSVkc8J:www.childrensservicesnorthernireland.com/earlyyears/faq.asp+Social+S

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

102

ervices+Early+Years+Teams+assessment+premises+staff&hl=en&start=1, 15thMarch, 2004.)

The DHSS offers guidance on the suitabilityof service providers, premises andequipment; adult/child ratios and thephysical environment in which care takesplace.

8.3.2 Pre-school EducationExpansion Programme

This programme provides funding toprivate and voluntary providers for theprovision of free pre-school places tochildren. The programme is committed toproviding quality pre-school education andas such includes regulations and aninspection process. All programmes have tomeet minimum quality standards to receivefunding:

These standards relate to the natureof the pre-school curriculum, thenumber and duration of sessions, thenumber of children, the staff/childratios, the qualifications held by staff,the accommodation and the provisionof support from a qualified teacher orearly years specialist. (DENI, 2002:1)

For example, all services participating inthe programme are required to secure theservices of a qualified teacher or an ECCEspecialist, who can in turn support staff inimplementing the education provision.

8.3.3 Curriculum

The Curricular Guidance for Pre-schoolEducation is a process rather than anoutcomes-based curriculum. It recognisesthat children are entitled to a curriculumwhich enables them to make appropriateprogress, and that desired learning willcome from an appropriate curriculum. Thecurriculum focuses on describing the typeof activities to be experienced rather thanon outlining the evidence of learning orassessment to be applied.

The Northern Ireland Curriculum sets outthe minimum educational entitlement forpupils aged four to sixteen years of age.There is a statutory requirement for theCurriculum to be delivered to all pupilsattending grant-aided schools.

The curriculum is defined in terms of fourkey stages. Key Stage One covers the firstfour school years (pupils aged four-eightyears of age) and includes ReligiousEducation, English, Mathematics, Scienceand Technology, History and Geography(known as the Environment and SocietyArea of Study), Art and Design, Music andPhysical Education (known as the Creativeand Expressive Area of Study). In addition,there are educational themes to be woventhrough the main subjects of thecurriculum, including education for mutualunderstanding, cultural heritage, healtheducation and information technology.

Each subject in the Northern IrelandCurriculum is defined within theProgrammes of Study and AttainmentTargets. The Programmes of Study set outthe opportunities which should be offeredto all pupils, subject to their age and ability,in terms of the knowledge, skills andunderstanding at each key stage. Teachersuse the programmes of study as a basis forplanning schemes of work. AttainmentTargets define the expected standards ofpupil performance in particular aspects of asubject and provide the basis for makingjudgements on pupils' attainment at theend of each key stage. The Northern IrelandCouncil for the Curriculum, Examinationsand Assessment (DHSS and DENI, 1997)are the statutory advisory bodiesresponsible for the curriculum.

8.4 Measuring Quality

The Education and Training Inspectoratereports on the quality of funded pre-schoolprovision within the statutory, private andvoluntary sector. The inspection process

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

103

consists of an informal pre-school visit,followed by a formal visit, which results ina published report. Where areas areidentified that require improvement, theservice is requested to draw up an actionplan, detailing the way in which they willwork to bring about the necessaryimprovements. The inspectorate monitorsthe implementation of these action plans.When shortcomings are found in key areas,a follow up inspection is carried out four tosix months after the initial formalinspection.

8.5 Supporting Quality

8.5.1 Children First

Children First, the Northern IrelandChildcare Strategy recognizes theimportance of ECCE in supporting parentsand families (DHSS in Association with theTraining and Employment Agency andDENI, 1999). Children First identifiesseveral problems currently facing thechildcare sector in Northern Ireland.Quality is variable in ECCE services, thereis no consistent definition of whatconstitutes quality, which is recognized andapplied across all childcare settings. Onlyhalf of all childcare workers in NorthernIreland have any relevant qualification.There are differences in regulation betweenthe education and care sectors. Theavailability of childcare is limited in someareas and is in many cases too expensivefor parents to afford. Parents' access tochildcare is also hampered by poorinformation and the quality and accuracy ofinformation on the availability of childcareis insufficient to allow parents makeinformed decisions about the care of theirchildren.

Children First proposes action in a numberof areas. First of all, it proposes action toaddress the quality of provision, includingthe establishment of new regional and localco-ordinating structures, better integrationof early education and childcare and a

commitment to collaborative workingbetween the Education and TrainingInspectorate and those responsible forregistration and inspection under theChildren Order. In addition, it advocatesGood Practice Networks to provide modelsof quality integrated education andchildcare, a new training and qualificationsframework for childcare workers, moreopportunities to train as childcare workersand better support for parents and informalcarers.

8.5.2 Sure Start

The Sure Start initiative was established toprovide early intervention supports fordisadvantaged families in an integratedfashion (Sure Start, Accessed at:http://www.surestart.gov.uk, 1st July,2004). Sure Start is a government initiativeto enhance services for children under fouryears of age and their families in areas ofgreatest need, through better access tofamily support, advice on parenting, healthservices and early learning. Each Sure Startproject is managed by a committee of localpartnerships including statutory, voluntaryand community groups and includes localparents in decision making. ChildcarePartnerships work with potential providersand identify priority areas for Sure StartProjects. Though the design and content ofSure Start programmes varies according tolocal needs, all programmes are expected toinclude a number of core servicesincluding:

Outreach and home visiting;

Support for families and parents;

Support for good quality play, learningand childcare experiences for children;

Primary and community health care;

Support for children and parents withspecial needs (Accessed at: Sure Start,Accessed at: http://www.surestart.gov.uk, 1st July, 2004).

Each Sure Start Programme also has a setof shared principles and is expected to:

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

104

Co-ordinate, streamline and add valueto existing services;

Involve parents, grandparents and othercarers;

Avoid stigma by ensuring that all localfamilies are able to use Sure Start;

Ensure lasting support by linking SureStart to services for older children;

Be culturally appropriate and sensitiveto particular needs;

Promote the participation of all localfamilies in the design and working ofthe programme (Sure Start, Accessed at:http://www.surestart.gov.uk, 1st July,2004).

8.5.3 Accreditation

One of the ways in which the quality ofservices provided can be improved isthrough the use of accreditation schemes(DHSS in Association with the Training andEmployment Agency and DENI, 1999:10).There are currently a variety ofaccreditation schemes available for ECCEproviders in Northern Ireland. Theseinclude PlayBoard's Quality AssuranceScheme 'Pathways to Excellence', theNIPPA (The Early Years Organisation)Quality Assurance Scheme and theHigh/Scope accreditation scheme.Northern Ireland Childminding Association(NICMA) provides quality assuranceschemes for childminders. Children Firststates that:

The Inter-Departmental Group onEarly Years will invite relevantchildcare organisations to worktogether with the group to developcommon standards for accreditationin Northern Ireland. (DHSS inAssociation with the Training andEmployment Agency and DENI,1999:11)

8.5.4 Building Quality Childcare

The New Opportunities Fund have recentlyopened a new grant scheme entitled

"Building Quality Childcare." The schemeis to meet the capital costs of new premises,refurbishment and modernisation ofexisting services and mobile services. Thefunding relates predominantly to pre-school provision.

8.5.5 Teacher Training

Initial training of school teachers generallyinvolves a four-year Bachelor of Educationdegree course, or a bachelor's degreefollowed by a one-year PostgraduateCertificate in Education. Staff in childcarefacilities are not required to holdqualifications, though services under thepre-school education expansionprogramme must have a qualified teacherinvolved to receive funding from theeducation authorities.

There is a range of qualifications availablefor staff in childcare facilities. The followingsection outlines some of the occupationprofiles and qualifications for thoseworking in the ECCE services ashighlighted by the Northern ChildcarePartnership (2002).

Nursery Nurses work in a supervisoryrole in a variety of settings such asnursery schools or classes and privateday nurseries. The Northern ChildcarePartnership recommends a specificqualification, such as a NationalVocational Qualification (NVQ) at Level3 for those employed as nursery nurses.

Nursery Assistants tend to work in ajunior role in nursery schools or classesand private day nurseries. The NorthernChildcare Partnership recommends aspecific qualification, such as NVQ atLevel 2 or equivalent for those employedas nursery assistants.

Playgroup leaders work in eithercommunity or private pre-schoolsettings providing either full day care orsessional care. Playgroup leaderssupervise staff on a day-to-day basis,plan the programme of activities andreport to the playgroup committee,chairperson or proprietor (Northern

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

105

Childcare Partnership, 2002). The NVQat Level 3 in Early Years Care andEducation or equivalent is seen as themost appropriate qualification for thoseinvolved in this kind of work. PlaygroupAssistants work under the supervision ofthe playgroup leader. The NVQ Level 2in Early Years Care and Education orequivalent Level 2 qualifications areconsidered the most appropriate for thiswork.

The Government is developing a national'climbing frame' of qualifications to helppeople enter, move and progress in thechildcare sector (DHSS in Association withthe Training and Employment Agency andDENI, 1999). This framework will map outequivalencies between different forms oftraining and qualification and will lay outprogression routes for those involved in theECCE sector. Children First recommendedthat:

T&EA [Training and EmploymentAgency] will develop a childcaretraining strategy for NorthernIreland, in consultation with otherrelevant Departments and otherstakeholders including employers inthe sector and the National TrainingOrganisations, and will aim to ensurethat the resources available are usedas efficiently and effectively aspossible. (DHSS in Association withthe Training and Employment Agencyand DENI, 1999:13)

8.5.6 Childminders

Considerable emphasis is placed ontraining for childminders, as a way ofenhancing quality (Northern AreaPartnership, 2002) and many childmindersundertake an introductory course beforethey begin childminding.

8.5.7 Childcare Partnerships

Under Children First, four ChildcarePartnerships were established, one for each

Health and Social Services Board inNorthern Ireland. These ChildcarePartnerships are partnerships of Voluntaryand Statutory Agencies whose remit is theimplementation of the Government'sChildcare Strategy, Children First. ThePartnerships provide a range of servicesdesigned to support quality; for example,the Southern Partnership has engaged inactivities such as the production of a guideto quality in ECCE services, theidentification of training needs and the co-ordination of training provision (SouthernArea Childcare Partnership, 2002).

8.5.8 Childminding Networks

A Children Come First childmindingnetwork is an approved formal group ofbetween twenty and thirty registeredchildminders recruited, assessed andmonitored by a network co-ordinator, whoensures that they maintain the standards ofNICMA's Quality Childminding Charter.Settings are monitored on a 12 weeklycycle.

8.5.9 Innovative Projects

There are some projects which seek todevelop the quality of services provided onan ongoing basis in Northern Ireland. Anumber of ECCE providers areparticipating in the EEL approach toquality assessment and improvement.NIPPA has implemented a pilot project onthe Reggio Emilia Approach, which hasinvolved 20 Early Years groups, working onestablishing this innovative approach toECCE in their facilities.

8.6 EducationalDisadvantage and SpecialNeeds

NICMA have a dedicated ChildmindingNetwork for families of children who mayhave a disability or special need. This

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

106

network can provide specially trainedchildminders who can be matched to achild's very specific needs.

Children with special educational needs areeducated within mainstream schoolswherever possible. If a child needs morehelp than can reasonably be provided bythe resources normally available to theschool, the local authority must issue astatement of special educational needs,detailing the needs and the necessary extraprovision. In 2000-2001, around three percent of all pupils had a statement of specialeducational needs and around one per centof all pupils were educated in specialschools.

In 2000-2001, the Northern Area ChildcarePartnership ran a grant scheme to supportthe inclusion of children with disabilitiesand from ethnic minorities in differenttypes of childcare provision (Northern AreaPartnership, 2002).

8.7 Implications forIreland

8.7.1 Co-ordination

Responsibility for ECCE is divided betweentwo government departments in line withthe division in Northern Ireland betweencare and education services.

8.7.2 Regulation

In Northern Ireland legislation sets downminimum standards regarding structuralaspects of quality such as premises, staffand equipment.

8.7.3 Curriculum

The value of a curriculum in supportingquality in ECCE is recognised in NorthernIreland. The Curricular Guidance for Pre-school Education is a process based

curriculum. It focuses on describing thetype of activities to be experienced by pre-school children. The Northern IrelandCurriculum sets out the minimumeducational entitlement for pupils agedfour to sixteen years of age.

8.7.4 Inspection

The Education and Training Inspectoratereports on the quality of funded pre-schoolprovision within the statutory, private andvoluntary sector. The inspection processconsists of an informal pre-school visit,followed by a formal visit, which results ina published report

8.7.5 Supporting Quality

Childcare Partnerships were established,one for each Health and Social ServicesBoard in Northern Ireland. Partnershipshave a focus on supporting and improvingquality. Activities undertaken by thepartnerships include the production of aguide to quality in ECCE services, theidentification of training needs and the co-ordination of training provision.

8.7.6 Special Needs and Disadvantage

Children with special educational needs areeducated within mainstream schoolswherever possible. If a child needs morehelp than can reasonably be provided bythe resources normally available to theschool, the local authority must issue astatement of special educational needs,detailing the needs and the necessary extraprovision. The Sure Start initiative wasestablished to provide early interventionsupports for disadvantaged families in anintegrated fashion.

8.7.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, on the strength of theevidence collected from Northern Ireland, anumber of features of quality can be

Chapter 8

Northern Ireland

107

identified which are worth considering inthe development of a quality framework forIreland:

While there is currently a divisionbetween education and care in NorthernIreland, it is an aim of governmentpolicy that co-ordination at all levelsbetween services providing care andeducation be improved.

Curriculum guidelines are used inNorthern Ireland as a mechanismdetermining quality in pre-schools andthere is a curriculum in place for allschool children.

There are several accreditation schemesoffered by voluntary childcareorganisations in Northern Ireland.

Childcare Partnerships have beenestablished to support and improvequality at local level, these Partnershipswill focus on issues such as theprovision of information and training.

The principle of inclusion inmainstream education for children withspecial needs is adopted in NorthernIreland.

108

Overview andConclusions

9.1 Introduction

This chapter summarises some of the keyissues that emerged from the profiling ofcountries in the last chapter. It is evidentthat there is much difference in the way inwhich quality is defined, measured andsupported amongst the countries includedin the review. These differences includeddifferences in welfare regimes,understandings of children, qualificationsand working conditions of the workforce,amount of public investment, whetherregulations are imposed nationally, locallyor by the State or regional government andthe range of measures adopted to supportquality improvements. Despite this, therewere also many similarities betweencountries. Measures such as a curriculumframework were adopted by some countriesfor all ECCE provision, by others for pre-school provision and in other countries bythe sector itself in an attempt to improvethe standard of care offered. Theinformation gathered provides a range ofpossibilities for the future development ofquality in Ireland.

9.2 Context

One key issue to emerge was theimportance of a co-ordinated andintegrated policy framework for ECCE. Insome countries this has been achieved bylocating responsibility for all ECCE serviceswith a single government department, insome instances, ECCE has been integratedinto the education system. For example, aunified system of care and education is animportant feature of ECCE in Sweden,where there is a single framework for achild's educational experience at pre-primary, first and second level education.

Chapter 9

Chapter 9

Overview and Conclusions

109

Other countries have attempted to establishstructures to ensure improved co-ordination between governmentdepartments regarding developments inECCE.

9.3 Defining Quality

Quality is defined in a variety of differentways by different countries. Some countriesfocus on structural features of quality, suchas premises, staff-child ratios and groupsize (Germany). Countries such as Norway,Sweden and New Zealand have moved toinclude process features in their definitionof quality. In these countries thecurriculum plays a key role in expandingthe definition of quality to include processfeatures. The adoption of a broadcurriculum framework is a key tool utilisedin defining quality in ECCE in thesecountries. The educational levels, trainingrequirements and working conditions ofstaff in both of the Nordic countries is highand both countries have well developedsystems of in-service training for centrebased services. A benchmark qualificationfor those working in the ECCE has beenlaid down in New Zealand. A highlyqualified staff is viewed as essential for thedevelopment of quality in these countries.Parents' involvement is also defined as animportant aspect of quality in somecountries, with countries such as Norwayand Portugal legislating for the involvementof parents in early education services.

9.4 Measuring Quality

Countries that focus on structural aspectsof quality use inspection as the mainmechanism in the monitoring of quality.Countries with more developed ECCEsystems moved from a model of inspectionbased on assessment to one based on apartnership approach with providers,where their role was to provide support and

assistance to providers in improvingquality. One notable trend was a growth inthe use of evaluations, both in terms ofevaluations forming the basis forgovernment monitoring of ECCE servicesand in terms of the inclusion of processesof self-review on the part of the provider aspart of the inspection process. Theprovision of support and assistance toproviders in implementing features such acurriculum framework and the adoption ofan evaluative approach to measuringquality allows for a broader definition ofquality, which is inclusive of process qualityindicators and for the continuousimprovement in the quality of provisionoffered by the provider. When measuringquality in a more evaluative way, thedevelopment and provision of high qualityresources for use by childcare providers isimportant.

9.5 Supporting Quality

There were many measures introduced inan attempt to support and improve thequality of ECCE services in the countriesincluded in this review. It should be notedthat the countries with the widest range ofmechanisms introduced by the governmentto support and improve quality were theEnglish speaking countries; countrieswhere childcare provision is primarilyreliant on the private market. Measuresintroduced to support and improve qualityin these countries included accreditationschemes and the provision of resourcessuch as The Quality Journey in NewZealand. The Nordic countries did notadopt many measures for supportingquality. This reflected the broad definitionof quality in these countries and thecomparatively high quality of care andeducation generally provided.

When examining the ways in which qualitywas supported in the countries included inthe review, approaches included the use ofnetworks to support ECCE practitioners,

Chapter 9

Overview and Conclusions

110

the use of pedagogical documentation, theprovision of training and professionaldevelopment opportunities, an innovativeKindergarten building programme, theintroduction of a curriculum and theprovision of resources to adequatelysupport measures to improve the quality ofcare and education offered. Researchprojects, focused on the issue of highquality in ECCE have commenced in somecountries, while the Nordic countriescollect and collate statistics annually on arange of structural indicators of quality.

9.6 Implications forIreland

One important question in light of thisreview is the implications for quality in theIrish context. Ireland most broadly fits intothe Anglo-Saxon/liberal welfare regime interms of Esping-Andersen's Typology ofWelfare States (Esping-Andersen, 1990).However, to look at potential directions ofquality in Ireland solely in relation to thosecountries with liberal welfare regimesnegates the valuable contribution of thisreview. Policies, practices and research inother countries concerning quality canprovide alternative ways of thinking andacting and innovative solutions to the questfor quality in ECCE in Ireland. From thereview, synergy themes needing attentionin the development of a NationalFramework for Quality (NFQ) in Irelandemerged, and some of the mainimplications that will need considerationare outlined below.

9.6.1 Co-ordinated Policy Framework

It is clear that a coherent co-ordinatedpolicy framework is essential for thepromotion of quality ECCE. While in somecountries this has been achieved throughthe location of responsibility for policy inECCE in one government department (theNordic Countries, New Zealand), other

countries have sought to establishstructures which promote a coherent policyframework (Portugal).

9.6.2 Broad Definition of Quality

This review has highlighted the myriaddefinitions of quality that potentially co-exist at any one point in time and amongstdifferent groups of people, both betweenand within countries. A flexible definitionof quality is needed and any mechanismsdesigned to support quality improvementin Ireland will need the ability toincorporate different perspectives onquality. Quality will need to be defined in away that is sufficiently broad to allow fordiversity and the adoption of a variety ofdifferent approaches. This definition ofquality should include process as well asstructural aspects.

9.6.3 A Support System which isAdvisory and Empowering

It is also clear from the review that theECCE sector in Ireland will require asupport system which is advisory andempowering, which does more than simplyinspect. Some countries have adopted anevaluative approach to assessment, thisallows for the measurement of concretestructural aspects of quality which areclearly defined and process aspects ofquality which are determined inpartnership with the service provider. Anevaluative approach to measuring qualityalso allows for the continuous improvementof the service and provides support toproviders on this journey.

9.6.4 Engagement of all Stakeholders

It is important that all stakeholders beengaged in any undertaking relating toquality. Much can be accomplished vianetworks of providers. In Sweden,organised networks of ECCE educators orcentres are viewed as a quality system asthey promote the exchange of ideas and

Chapter 9

Overview and Conclusions

111

facilitate ongoing professional developmentamongst ECCE professionals. Researchjournals regarding ECCE have beenestablished in Norway, Sweden andPortugal. In New Zealand, the sector cametogether in 1996 to develop a statement onthe future development of ECCE and whatwas needed to ensure quality.

9.6.5 Parental Involvement

The importance of parents as keystakeholders has also been recognised andsome countries have legislated for theinvolvement of parents in childcarefacilities. Parental involvement is animportant aspect of quality and anydevelopments undertaken in Ireland shouldbe based on a partnership approach withparents.

9.6.6 Adequate Support

It is vital that initiatives seeking to impacton the quality of care and education areadequately supported. For example, theintroduction of a curriculum needs avariety of supports if it is to be successful.One can point to New Zealand in thisregard, and highlight the wide consultationwith the sector that was an integral part ofthe construction of the curriculum, to theprofessional development programmesoffered regarding the new curriculum, toseveral research projects that worked todeveloping frameworks for evaluation andassessment based on the curriculum and toplans to improve process quality throughlegislating the curriculum. One can alsolook at Germany where one of therequirements of the two projects focused ondeveloping quality indicators and practicalassessment procedures for evaluating thepedagogical work with children aged birthto six is the production of accessible,flexible and relatively low cost printedmaterial available to ECCE institutions forself-evaluation and internal qualitydevelopment procedures.

9.6.7 Training

International research highlights theimportance of training in the provision ofservices and suggests that there is a generaltrend towards longer and higher-level basictraining for ECCE workers. Both Swedenand New Zealand have all settled on athree-year degree as the main orbenchmark training for workers across theECCE age range. This qualification must beheld by all coordinators and personsresponsible in New Zealand, while inNorway the styrere and pedagogiske lederemust be educated pre-school teachers.Portugal has also sought to set standardswith the requirement that staff in pre-school institutions hold a pre-schooldegree. The importance of ongoingprofessional development has also beenacknowledged in several countries. Anyapproach to improving the quality ofchildcare and early education in Irelandwill need to take the issue of training intoaccount.

9.6.8 Special Needs

In most countries, an integrative approachis adopted for children with special needswith a range of supports such as decreasedgroup sizes and specialised teachersprovided. Inclusion within mainstreamearly education can be beneficial forchildren with special needs. It is importantthat the inclusion of children with specialneeds in mainstream ECCE is adequatelysupported.

9.7 Conclusion

It is perhaps worth noting in conclusionthat a broad range of quality measures,which have the support of parents,practitioners, children, policy makers andsociety in general represent the bestopportunity for quality childcare in Ireland.It is suggested that quality of provision willnot be ensured and standards will not be

Chapter 9

Overview and Conclusions

112

raised with a focus on one or more aspectsof quality, but that a wide framework ofinitiatives must be adopted in the searchfor quality in ECCE in Ireland. Thefollowing interaction sheds much light onthe process we are about to undertake inIreland and the necessity of remainingcognisant of the complexity of quality in theIrish context.

Marco Polo describes a bridge.

"But which is the stone that sustainsthe bridge?" asks Kubla Khan"The bridge is not sustained by thisstone or that stone" Marco answers"but by the line of the arch that theycreate."Kubla Khan is silent, reflecting. Thenhe says "So why are you telling meabout the stones? It is the arch thatinterests me."Polo answers back to him "There is noarch without stones." (Calvino, citedin OECD 1998b:13).

We might similarly conclude that there isno single answer to the issue of quality inIreland, but a series of "stones" that if usedcorrectly can raise the quality of ECCE.

113

Bibliography

Abbott, L. and Pugh, G. (1998) (Eds.).Training to Work in Early Years.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Adams L. and Hanley P. (2000). EarlyChildhood Education for Children withDisabilities in New Zealand” (in) DisabilityWorld – A Bimonthly Web-zine ofInternational Disability News and Views.Issue no. 2, Accessed at: http//www.disabilityworld.org/April-May2000/Children/NewZealand.htm, 15th July,2004.

Alcock, S. (1996). Fellowship ReportQuality Systems in Early ChildhoodCentres. Margaret May Blackwell TravelStudy Fellowship, Accessed at: http://www.ecdu.govt.nz/publications/research/SophieAlcock.doc, 15th July, 2004.

Alvestad, M. and Samuelsson, I. (1999). AComparison of the National PreschoolCurriculum in Norway and Sweden. EarlyChildhood Research and Practice, Volume1, No. 2, Accessed at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/print/alvestad.html, August 10th,2004.

Area Development Management (2003a).EOCP Quality Sub-Measure NVCOPriorities and Range of Actions forpossible Future Funding (2004-2006)Discussion and Guidance Paper. Dublin:Area Development Management.

Area Development Management (2003b).Strategic Plan. Dublin: Area DevelopmentManagement.

Area Development Management (2003c).National Childcare Census Baseline Data1999-2000. Dublin: Area DevelopmentManagement.

Arnett, J. (1989). “Caregivers in Day-careCenters: Does Training Matter?” Journal of

Bibliography

114

Applied Developmental Psychology,Volume 10, pp. 541-552.

Ball, C. (1994). Start Right: TheImportance of Early Learning. London:Royal Society for the Encouragement ofArts, Manufacture and Commerce.

Barnett, W. (1995). “Long-Term Effects ofEarly Childhood Programs on Cognitiveand School Outcomes” (in) The Future ofChildren. Accessed athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs-info2825/pubs-info.htm?doc_id=77657,15th October, 2004.

Bennett, J. (2000). “Goals, Curricula andQuality Monitoring in Early EducationSystems.” Paper produced for ConsultativeMeeting on International Developments inECCE.

Bertram, T. and Pascal, C. (2002). EarlyYears Education: An InternationalPerspective. London: Qualifications andCurriculum Authority. Accessed at:http://www.inca.org.uk, 9th August, 2004.

Blau, D. (1997). “The Production of Qualityin Child Care Centres” (in) The Journal ofHuman Resources Volume 32, No. 2, pp.354-387.

Blenkin, G., Rose, J. and Yue, N. (1996).“Government Policies and Early Education:Perspectives from Practitioners” (in)European Early Childhood ResearchJournal. Volume 4, No. 2, pp. 5–19.

Bloch, M. (1992). “Critical Perspectives onthe Historical Relationship between ChildDevelopment and Early ChildhoodEducation Research” (in) Kessler, S. andSwadener, B. (Eds.) Reconceptualizing theEarly Childhood Curriculum: Beginningthe Dialogue. New York: Teachers’ CollegePress.

Border Counties Childcare Network (2004).Newsletter – March 2004. Issue 13.

Border Counties Childcare Network,Accessed at: http://www.bccn.ie/leafbccn.htm, 1st July, 2004.

Bowman, B., Donovan, M. and Burns, M.(Eds.) (2001). Eager to Learn: Educatingour Preschoolers. Washington DC:National Academic Press.

Burchinal, M. (1999). “Child CareExperiences and Developmental Outcomes”(in) Helburn, S. (Ed.). The Silent Crisis inU.S. Child Care [Special Issue]. Annals ofthe American Academy of Political andSocial Science, Volume 563, pp. 73-97.

Burgard, R. (2000). “The FrankfurtKindergartens” (in) Penn, H. (Ed). EarlyChildhood Services Theory, Policy andPractice. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Cameron, C., Candappa, M., McQuail, S.,Mooney, A., Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2003).Early Years and Childcare InternationalEvidence Project: The Workforce. London:DfES.

Candappa, M., Moss, P., Cameron, C.,McQuail, S., Mooney, A. and Petrie, P.(2003). Early Years and ChildcareInternational Evidence Project: Fundingand Sustainability. London: DfES.

Carr. M. (1998a). Assessing Children’sLearning in Early Childhood Settings: AProfessional Development Programme forDiscussion and Reflection (Three Videosand Workshop Programme). Wellington:New Zealand Council For EducationalResearch

Carr, M. (1998b). “A Project for AssessingChildren’s Experiences in Early ChildhoodSettings” (in) Learning and TeachingStories New Approaches to Assessmentand Evaluation in relation to Te Whariki.Symposium for 8th European Conferenceon Quality in Early Childhood Settings,Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September1998.

Bibliography

115

Carr M. and May, H. (1998). “Introduction- An update of Te Whariki The NewZealand National Early ChildhoodCurriculum” (in) Learning and TeachingStories: New Approaches to Assessmentand Evaluation in relation to Te Whariki.Symposium for 8th European Conferenceon Quality in Early Childhood Settings,Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September1998.

Carr M. and May, H. (2000). “Te Whariki:Curriculum Voices” (in) Penn, H. (Ed.).Early Childhood Services - Theory Policyand Practice. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Carr, M., May, H. and Podmore, V. (2000).Learning and Teaching Stories: ActionResearch on Evaluation in EarlyChildhood. Final Report to the Ministry ofEducation. Wellington: NZCER.

Carroll, E. in collaboration with O’Dwyer,L. (2002). The Well-Being of Children.Four Papers Exploring Conceptual, Ethicaland Measurement Issues. Dublin: IrishYouth Foundation.

Caughy, M., Di Pietro, J. and Strobino, M.(1994). “Day-care Participation as aProtective Factor in the CognitiveDevelopment of Low-income Children” (in)Child Development. Volume 65, pp.457–71.

Centre for Early Childhood Developmentand Education (2001). Programme ofWork. Accessed at: http://www.cecde.ie/english/pdf/work_programme.pdf, 15th

October, 2004.

Centre for Early Childhood Developmentand Education (2003). An Audit ofResearch on Early Childhood Care andEducation in Ireland 1990 - 2003. Dublin:Centre for Early Childhood Developmentand Education

Centre for Early Childhood Developmentand Education (2004a). Talking About

Quality – Report of a Consultation Processon Quality in Early Childhood Care andEducation. Dublin: Centre for EarlyChildhood Development and Education.

Centre for Early Childhood Developmentand Education (2004b). Research Strategy.A Work in Progress. Accessed at: http://www.cecde.ie/english/pdf/research_strategy.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Centre for Migration and DevelopmentWorking Paper Series Princeton University.Accessed at: http://cmd.princeton.edu/papers/wp0309b.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Child Care Aware (2001). Choosing ChildCare for a Child with Special Needs.National Association of Child CareResource and Referral Agencies and EasterSeals, Accessed at: http://www.childcareaware.org/en/tools/pubs/pdf/102e.pdf, 16th July, 2004.

Childcare Resource and Research Unit(1997). What does Research tell us aboutQuality in Child Care? University ofToronto: CRRU Factsheet.

Children Order Regulations and Guidance(1996). Volume 2 Family Support,Childminding and Day Care. Accessed at:http://www.nics.gov.uk/ni-direct/dhss/child/volume2.pdf, 15th March, 2004.

Children’s Services Northern Ireland,Accessed at: http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:iyL7DHSVkc8J:www.childrensservicesnorthernireland.com/earlyyears/faq.asp+Social+Services+Early+Years+Teams+assessment+premises+staff&hl=en&start=1,15th October, 2004.

Choi, S. (2003). Lifelong Learning andSocial Policy for Early Childhood.UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood.Accessed at: http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/ecf/pdf/brief11en.pdf,1st July, 2004.

Bibliography

116

Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001).Listening to Young Children -TheMosaic Approach. London: NationalChildren’s Bureau.

Clearinghouse (2003a). New Zealand. TheClearinghouse on InternationalDevelopments in Child, Youth and FamilyPolicies at Colombia University. Accessedat: www.childpolicyintl.org/countries/newzealand.html, October 15th, 2004.

Clearinghouse (2003b). Norway. TheClearinghouse on InternationalDevelopments in Child, Youth and FamilyPolicies at Colombia University. Accessedat: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/,October 15th, 2004.

Clearinghouse (2003c). Portugal. TheClearinghouse on InternationalDevelopments in Child, Youth and FamilyPolicies at Colombia University. Accessedat: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/countries, October 15th, 2004.

Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M. andQuin, S. (2001) (Eds.). “Introduction” (in)Understanding Children, Volume 1: State,Education and Economy. Cork: Cork TreePress.

Coolahan, J. (Ed.) (1998). Report on theNational Forum for Early ChildhoodEducation. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Council for Curriculum, Examinations andAssessment (1997). Curricular Guidancefor Pre-school Education. Belfast: DENI.

Cryer, D., Tietze, W. and Wessels, H.(2002). “Parents’ Perceptions of theirChildren’s Child Care: A Cross-national Comparison” (in) EarlyChildhood Research QuarterlyVolume 17, No. 2, pp. 259-277.

Cryer, D., Tietze, W., Burchinal, M., Leal, T.and Palcios, J. (1999). “Predicting ProcessQuality from Structural Quality inPreschool Programs: A Cross-country

Comparison” (in) Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, Volume 14, No. 3, pp.339-361.

Cubey, P. and Dalli, C. (1996). QualityEvaluation of Early ChildhoodProgrammes: A Literature Review.Occasional Paper Series. Wellington:Institute for Early Childhood Studies,Victoria University of Wellington.

Cullen, J. (1996). “The Challenge of TeWhãriki for Future Development in EarlyChildhood Education” (in) Delta, Volume48, No. 1, pp. 113-25.

Curtis, A. (2000). Indicators of Quality inEarly Childhood Education and CareProgrammes. Accessed at:http://www.worldbank.org/children/nino/basico/Curtis.htm, October 15th,2004.

Dahlberg, G. (2000). “Everything is aBeginning and Everything is Dangerous:Some Reflections on the Reggio EmiliaExperience” (in) Penn, H. (Ed.). EarlyChildhood Services Theory, Policy andPractice. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A.(1999). Beyond Quality in Early ChildhoodEducation and Care. Post-modernPerspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Dalli, C. (2003). Early Childhood Policy inNew Zealand: Stories of SectorCollaborative Action in the 1990’s.Education International Working PapersNo. 10. Brussels: Education International.

Daycare Trust (1998). Listening toChildren. Young children’s Views onChildcare: A Guide for Parents. London:Daycare Trust.

Depree, L. and Hayward, K. (2001).Creating Changes to Culture. Using theQuality Journey Resource as a ReflectiveTool. Paper presented at the New Zealand

Bibliography

117

Association for Research in EducationAnnual Conference, December, Dunedin.

Department of Education Northern Ireland(2002). Begin with Quality - The Pre-school Expansion Programme. Quality ofEducational Provision in Voluntary andPrivate Pre-school Centres September 1998– June 2001. Accessed at: http://www.deni.gov.uk/inspection_services/general_pub/V%20and%20P%20Pre%20School%20Centres.pdf, 19th July, 2004.

Department of Education and Science(1998). Education Act. Dublin: TheStationery Office.

Department of Education and Science(1999). Ready to Learn - White Paper onEarly Childhood Education. Dublin: TheStationary Office.

Department of Education and Science(2000). Education Welfare Act. Dublin:The Stationery Office.

Department of Health (1996). The ChildCare (Pre-school Services) Regulations.Dublin: The Stationary Office.

Department of Health and Children(2000). National Children’s Strategy: OurChildren - Their Lives. Dublin: TheStationary Office.

Department of Justice, Equality and LawReform (1998). Study of the Economics ofChildcare in Ireland. Dublin: TheStationery Office.

Department of Justice, Equality and LawReform (1999). National ChildcareStrategy: Report of the Partnership 2000Expert Working Group on Childcare.Dublin: The Stationary Office.

Department of Justice, Equality and LawReform (2002). Model Framework forEducation, Training and ProfessionalDevelopment in the Early Childhood Careand Education Sector. Dublin: Department

of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Department of Justice, Equality and LawReform (2004). Developing Childcare inIreland – A Review of Progress to End2003 on the Implementation of the EOCP2000-2006. Dublin: Department of Justice,Equality and Law Reform.

Department of Justice, Equality and LawReform, Accessed at: http://www.justice.ie/80256996005F3617/vWeb/wpJWOD4TFJHN, 1st July, 2004.

DHSS and DENI (1997). CurricularGuidance for Pre-school Education.Belfast: Northern Ireland Council forCurriculum, Examinations and Assessment.

DHSS in Association with the Training andEmployment Agency and DENI (1999).Children First - The Northern IrelandChildcare Strategy. Accessed at: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/archived/childfirst.asp, July 21st, 2004.

Doherty-Derkowski, G. (1994).Quality Matters: Excellence in EarlyChildhood Programs. Don Mills,Ontario: Addison-Wesley PublishersLimited.

Early Childhood Development,Accessed at: http://www.ecd.govt.nz/,1st July, 2004.

Early Childhood Development Unit (1996).Quality in Early Childhood Education.Wellington: Early Childhood DevelopmentUnit

Early Childhood Education Project (2000).Future Directions. Early ChildhoodEducation in New Zealand – SecondEdition. Wellington: New ZealandEducational Institute. Accessed at: http://www.nzei.org.nz/pdf/directions.pdf, 15th

October, 2004.

Early Childhood Education StrategicWorking Plan Group (2001). Final Report

Bibliography

118

of the Strategic Plan Working Group to theMinister of Education. Wellington:Ministry of Education. Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=6413&indexid=7689&indexparentid=5234, 15th July, 2004.

Educational Research Centre (1998). EarlyStart Pre-school Programme FinalEvaluation Report. Dublin: EducationalResearch Centre.

Education Review Office (1998). Use of TeWhãriki. Accessed at:http://www.ero.govt.nz/Publications/eers1998/TeWhariki/TeWhariki.htm#5%A0%A0%20Use%20of%20Te%20Whariki%20by%20Early%20Childhood%20Services, 15th July, 2004.

Educational Review Office (2002a).Education Reviews in Early ChildhoodServices. Accessed at: http://www.ero.govt.nz/Publications/Leaflets/ECEdRevs.htm,15th October, 2004.

Educational Review Office (2002b).Framework and Resources for EarlyChildhood Education Reviews. Accessed at:http://www.ero.govt.nz/EdRevInfo/ECedrevs/ECFramework.htm, 15th October, 2004.

Education (Early Childhood Education)Regulations 1998 Accessed at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_regs#FN3, 9th August,2004.

Eknes, K. (2000). “Financing EarlyChildhood Education and Care in Norway.”Paper presented at a Conference onLifelong Learning as an AffordableInvestment, Ottowa, December 6-8th,2000.

Elliot, R. (2002). “Sharing Care andEducation: Parents Perspectives.” Paperpresented at 12th European Conference onQuality in Early Childhood Education,Strategies for Effective Learning in EarlyChildhood, 28th-31st August, University ofCypress, Lefkosia, Cyprus.

Engelen E. (2003). “ConceptualizingEconomic Incorporation. From‘Institutional Linkages’ to ‘InstitutionalHybrids’”. Paper written for the conferenceon Conceptual and MethodologicalDevelopments in the Study of InternationalMigration, Princeton University.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The ThreeWorlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). SocialFoundations of Post-industrial Economies.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Estévez-Abe, M. (2002). “Gendering theVarieties of Capitalism: Gender Bias inSkills and Social Policies”. Paper preparedfor Yale Conference, GovernmentDepartment, Harvard University, July22nd, Accessed at: http://www.yale.edu/leitner/pdf/Estevez-Abe.doc, 15th October,2004.

Evans, J. (1996). “Quality in ECCD:Everyone’s Concern.” CoordinatorsNotebook, An International Resourcefor Early Childhood Development.Volume 18, pp. 1-26.

Everiss, E. and Dalli, C. (2003). “FamilyDay Care in New Zealand: Training, Qualityand Professional Status” (in) Mooney, A.and Statham, J. (2003). Family Day Care.International Perspectives on Policy,Practice and Quality. London: JessicaKingsley Publishers.

Farquhar, S. (1990). “Quality in EarlyChildhood Education and Care: What do weMean?” Early Child Development andCare, Volume 64, pp. 71-83.

Farquhar, S. (1991). “A ‘Purple People-Eater’ or Quality Assurance Mechanism?The 1989/90 Early Childhood CentreCharter Requirements” (in) Gold, M.,Foote, L. and Smith, A. (Eds.). The Impactof Policy Change: Proceedings of FifthEarly Childhood Convention, Dunedin,September 6th-12th, 1991.

Bibliography

119

Farquhar, S., (1999). Research and theProduction of ‘Worthwhile’ Knowledgeabout Quality in Early Years Education.Paper presented at AARE-NZAREconference, Melbourne, Australia,December 1999.

Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, SeniorCitizens, Women and Youth (2000).National Quality Initiative DevelopingAssessment Procedures for EvaluatingEarly Years and Out-of-School Services forChildren in Germany: A SystemicApproach. Berlin: Federal Ministry ofFamily Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women andYouth.

Feeney, S. and Freeman, N. (1999). Ethicsand the Early Childhood Educator. NewYork: NAEYC.

Finn, J. and Achilles, C. (1990). “Answersand Questions about Class Size: AStatewide Experiment” (in) AmericanEducational Research Journal Volume 27,pp. 557–577.

French, G. (2000). Supporting Quality –Guidelines for Best Practice in EarlyChildhood Services. Dublin: Barnardos’National Children’s Resource Centre.

French, G. (2003). Supporting Quality –Guidelines for Best Practice in EarlyChildhood Services (Second Edition).Dublin: Barnardos’ National Children’sResource Centre.

Friesen, B. (1995). A SociologicalExamination of the Child Care AuspiceDebate. Occasional Paper No. 6. Toronto:Centre for Urban and Community Studies,University of Toronto.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S. andShinn, M. (1994). The Study of Children inFamily Child Care and Relative Care. KeyFindings and Policy Recommendations.Young Children, The Journal for theNational Association for the Education ofYoung Children Volume 50, No. 1, pp. 58-61.

Gelder, U. (2000). “Carving out a Niche?The Work of a Tagesmutter in the NewGermany” (in) Mooney, A. and Statham, J.(2003) (Eds.). Family Day Care.International Perspectives on Policy,Practice and Quality. London: JessicaKnightley Publishers.

Goethe Institut, Accessed at: http://www.goethe.de/kug/buw/sub/ein/en24571.htm,1st July, 2004.

Goffin, S. The Role of Curriculum Modelsin Early Childhood Education. Accessed at:http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/curriculum.html, 15th October, 2004.

Golberg, M. (1999). Accreditation of ChildCare Centres. Alberta: The MuttartFoundation. Accessed at: http://www.muttart.org/download/Golberg.pdf, July21st, 2004.

Goldstein, H. and Blatchford, P. (1998).“Class Size and Educational Achievement.A Review of Methodology with ParticularReference to Study Design.” BritishEducation Research Journal, Volume 24,No. 3, pp. 255-268.

Gotts, E. (1988). “The Right to QualityChild Care” (in) Childhood Education,Volume 64, pp. 269-273.

Griebel, W. and Niesel, R. (1999). “FromKindergarten to School: A Transition forthe Family”. Paper presented at the 9thEuropean EECERA Conference on Qualityin Early Childhood Education, Quality inEarly Childhood Education - How DoesEarly Education Lead to Life-LongLearning?, Helsinki, Finland, 1st-4th

September.

Harms, T. and Clifford, R. (1980). EarlyChildhood Environmental Rating Scale.New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Harms, T. and Clifford, R. (1989). FamilyDay Care Rating Scale. New York:Teachers’ College Press.

Bibliography

120

Harms, T. and Clifford, R. (1990).Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale.New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Harms, T., Clifford, D. and Cryer, D.(1998). Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale Revised Edition (ECERS-R).New York: Teachers’ College Press.

HarperCollins (1999). Paperback EnglishDictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Hayes, N. (1995). “The Case for a NationalPolicy on Early Education”. CombatPoverty Agency Discussion Paper No. 2.Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

Hayes, N. (2001). “Early ChildhoodEducation in Ireland Policy, Provision andPractice” (in) Administration Volume 49,No. 3, pp. 43–67.

Hayes, N. (2002a). Children’s Rights –Whose Right? A Review of Child PolicyDevelopment in Ireland. Dublin: The PolicyInstitute, Trinity College.

Hayes, N. (2002b). “Early ChildhoodEducation in Ireland. Policy Provision andPractice” (in) Sollars, V. (Ed.). Curricula,Policies and Practices in Early ChildhoodEducation. Malta: P.E.G. Ltd.

Hayes, N. (2002c). Quality in EarlyChildhood Education. Presentation to theNCNA Annual Conference, Dublin Castle.

Hayes, N., Montie, J. and Claxton, J.(2003). “New Process QualityIndicators from the IEA PreprimaryProject Observation System” (in)Weikart, D., Olmsted, P. and Montie,J. with Hayes, N. and Ojala, M. (Eds.).The IEA Preprimary Project Phase 2 -A World of Preschool ExperienceObservations in 15 Countries.Michigan: High/Scope Press.

Helburn, S. (Ed.) (1995). Cost, Quality andChild Outcomes in Child Care Centers:

Technical Report. Denver, CO: Departmentof Economics, Centre for Research inEconomic and Social Policy, University ofColorado.

Helburn, S. and Bergmann, B. (2002).America’s Childcare Problem - The WayOut. New York: Palgrave

Helburn S. and Howes C. (1996). “ChildCare Cost and Quality” (in) The Future ofChildren, Volume 6, No. 2.

Hendricks, A. and Meade, A. (1999). TheQuality Journey /He Haerenga Whai Hua:Improving Quality in Early ChildhoodServices. Wellington: Learning Media.

HMSO (1995). The Children (NorthernIreland) Order 1995. Norwich: TheStationary Office. Accessed at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950755_en_1.htm#tcon, October 15th, 2004.

Horgan, M. (2002). “From Automaton toActivist: A Conceptional Analysis of theEarly Years Curricula” (in) Horgan, M. andDouglas, F. (Eds.). Lessons for the 21st

Century: Research, Reflection, Renewal.Proceedings of the OMEP (Ireland)Conference held in the DIT Aungier Street,20th April 2002.

Horgan, M. and Douglas, F. (2001). “SomeAspects of Quality in Early ChildhoodEducation” (in) Cleary, A., Nic GhiollaPhádraig, M. and Quin, S. (Eds.).Understanding Children Volume 1: State,Education and Economy. Cork: Cork TreePress.

Howes, C., Phillips, D., and Whitebook, M.(1992). Thresholds of Quality: Implicationsfor the Social Development of Children inCentre Based Care. Child Development,Volume 63, pp. 449–60.

Humphreys, T. (1998) “The Damage thatWork can do to your Child” (in) The IrishTimes, January 27th.

Bibliography

121

Hurst, K. with Smith, A. (1995). MonitoringQuality in Early Childhood Education.Final Research Report to the Ministry ofEducation. Dunedin: University of Otago.

Kamerman, S. (2000). “Early ChildhoodEducation and Care: An Overview ofDevelopments in the OECD Countries”.Paper presented at Consultative Meeting ofInternational and US Experts onInternational Developments in the Field ofEarly Childhood Education and Care, May11th and 12th, 2000, under the auspices ofthe Institute for Child and Family Policy atColumbia University. Accessed at: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/, September 9th,2004.

Kamerman, S. (2001). Early ChildhoodEducation and Care: InternationalPerspectives. Testimony Prepared for theUnited States Senate Committee on HealthEducation, Labor and Pensions TuesdayMarch 27th 2001. Accessed at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/childpolicy/senate-testimony.pdf, July 21st, 2004.

Katz. L. (1993). Multiple Perspectives onQuality of Early Childhood Programs.ERIC Digest. Urbana IL: ERICClearinghouse on Elementary and EarlyChildhood Education. Accessed at: http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed355041.html, July 21st, 2004.

Katz, L. and Chard, S. (1996). TheContribution of Documentation to theQuality of Early Childhood Education.Accessed at: http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/ae/literacies/reggio/reggioarticle1.htm, 15th

October, 2004.

Keaveny, D. (2002). “Early ChildhoodEducation in Germany” (in) Sollars, V.(Ed.) (2002). Curricula, Policies andPractices in Early Childhood Education.Malta: P.E.G. Ltd.

Kellaghan, T. and Greaney, B. (1993). TheEducational Development of Students

Following Participation in a PreschoolProgramme in a Disadvantaged Area.Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Kelly, M. (2000). Good Practice Self-Assessment Manual. Dublin: NationalChildren’s Nurseries Association.

Kiernan, G. (2003). “The Best for Children- Developing Quality Standards for EarlyChildhood Care and Education in Ireland”.Presentation at NCNA’s AnnualConference, 10th May 2003. Accessed at:http://www.cecde.ie/english/conference_papers.php, 15th October, 2004.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., andGalinsky, E. (1995). Quality in FamilyChild Care and Relative Care. New York:Teachers’ College Press.

Kontos, S., Hsu, H., and Dunn, L. (1994).“Children’s Cognitive and SocialCompetence in Child Care Centers andFamily Day Care Homes” (in) Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology,Volume 15, pp. 87-111.

Kosiander, P. and Reigstad, E. (2000).“Early Childhood Sector in Norway – AGlance in the Year 2000” (in) Sollars, V.(Ed.). Curricula, Policies and Practices inEarly Childhood Education. Malta: P.E.G.Ltd.

Kosiander, P. and Reigstad, E. (2002).“Early Childhood Sector in Norway – AGlance in the Year 2000” (in) Sollars, V.(Ed.) Curricula, Policies and Practices inEarly Childhood Education. Malta: P.E.G.Ltd.

Kreyenfeld, M., Spiess, K. and Wagner, G.(2000). A Forgotten Issue: DistributionalEffects of Day Care Subsidies in Germany.Discussion Paper No. 226. Berlin:Deutsches Institut fürWirtschaftsforschung. Accessed at: http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=en&mainframe=http%3A//www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract%3Fdp_id%3D198&topSelect=publications&subSel

Bibliography

122

ect=papers, 21st July, 2004.

Kreyenfeld, M., Spiess, C. and Wagner, G.(2001). Finanzierrungs- UndOrganisationsmodelle InstitutionellerKinderbetreuung. Berlin: Luchterhand.

Kultusministerkonferenz, Aceesed at:http://www.kmk.org/dossier/dossier_2002/3_preschool_2002.pdf, 15th July, 2004.

Lamb, M. (1998). “Non-parental ChildCare: Contexts, Quality, Correlates andConsequences” (in) Sigel, I. and Renninger,K. (Eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology,Volume 4. New York: Wiley.

Langsted, O. (1994). “Looking at Qualityfrom the Child’s Perspective” (in) Moss, P.and Pence, A. (Eds.). Valuing Quality inEarly Childhood Services. NewApproaches to Defining Quality. London:Teachers’ College.

Larner, M. and Phillips, D. (1994).“Defining and Valuing Quality as a Parent”(in) Moss, P. and Pence, A. (Eds.). ValuingQuality in Early Childhood Services. NewApproaches to Defining Quality. London:Teachers’ College.

Layzer, J., Goodson, B. and Moss, M.(1993). Observational Study of EarlyChildhood Programmes, Final Report,Volume 1. Washington D.C.: Department ofEducation.

Lind, U. (1998). “Positions in SwedishChild Pedagogical Research” (in) David, T.(Ed.). Researching Early ChildhoodEducation. London: Paul ChapmenPublishing Limited.

Lindon, J. (2000). Early Years Care andEducation in Europe. London: Hodder andStoughton.

Lohmander, M. (2002). “Early ChildhoodEducation and Care in Sweden: Curricula,Policies and Practices” (in) Sollars, V. (Ed.).Curricula, Policies and Practices in Early

Childhood Education. Malta: P.E.G. Ltd.

Love, J., Schochet, P. and Meckstroth, A.(1996). Are They in any Real Danger?What Research Does—and Doesn’t—Tell usabout Child Care Quality and Children’sWell-being. Plainsboro, NJ: MathematicaPolicy Research.

Mahon, R. (2001). “What Kind of ‘SocialEurope’? The Example of Child Care”.Paper presented at the 1st IES AnnualColloquium, The European Union: OneMarket, One Social Model? September2001. Accessed at: http://www.iee.umontreal.ca/publicationseng_fichiers/DIVERS/Texte-Mahon01.pdf, July 21st, 2004.

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). “History, Ideas, andBasic Philosophy” (in) Edwards, C.,Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (Eds.). TheHundred Languages of Children: TheReggio Emilia Approach to EarlyChildhood Education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mara, D. (1998). Implementation of TeWhãriki in Pacific Island Centres. FinalReport to the Ministry of Education.Wellington: New Zealand Council forEducational Research.

Martin, J. (2001). “IntroductoryPresentation” at Starting Strong. EarlyChildhood Education and Care, Stockholm,June 2001.

May, H. (2002a). “AOTEAROA - NewZealand: The Politics of Early ChildhoodPolicy and Curriculum” (in) Sollars, V.(2002). Curricula, Policies and Practices inEarly Childhood Education. Malta: P.E.G.Ltd.

May, H. (2002b). “Early Childhood Careand Education in Aotearoa - New Zealand:An Overview of History, Policy andCurriculum”. For publication in a NewZealand Edition by Keith Sullivan, for theMcGill Journal of Education, Canada,2002. Accessed at: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Ec/HMayspeech.pdf, 15th October,2004.

Bibliography

123

May, H. and Podmore, V. (1998). “Projectfor Developing a Framework for Self-Evaluation of Early ChildhoodProgrammes” (in) Learning and TeachingStories - New Approaches to Assessmentand Evaluation in relation to Te Whariki.Symposium for 8th European Conferenceon Quality in Early Childhood Settings,Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September1998.

Mayall, B. (1996). Children, Health and theSocial Order. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press

McGurk, H., Mooney, A., Moss, P. andPoland, G. (1995). Staff – Child Ratios inCare and Education Services for YoungChildren. London: HMSO

McLachlan-Smith, C., Grey, A. and Haynes,D. (2001). “The Quality Journey:Preliminary Results from 72 EarlyChildhood Centres”. Paper presented at theNew Zealand Association for Research inEducation Conference, 6-9th December,Christchurch, New Zealand.

McQuail, S., Mooney, A., Cameron, C.,Candappa, M., Moss, P. and Petrie, P.(2002). Early Years and ChildcareInternational Evidence Project: ChildOutcomes. London: DfES.

Meade, A. (1999). “New Zealand Fundingof Early Childhood Education”. Paperprepared for the World Bank, January1999. Accessed at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/10/27/000094946_01101304015225/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Meade, A. (1988). Education to be More:Report of the Early Childhood Care andEducation Working Group. Wellington:Department of Education.

Meade, A. and Kerslake Hendricks, A.(1998). Quality Indicators in EarlyChildhood Services: Preliminary Ideas

about Early Childhood QualityImprovement Systems and Indicators.Mimeo. Wellington: New Zealand Councilfor Educational Research.

Meade, A. and Podmore, V. (2002). EarlyChildhood Education Policy Co-ordinationunder the Auspices of the Department/Ministry of Education: A Case Study ofNew Zealand.. UNESCO Early Childhoodand Family Policy Series No. 1. Paris,France.

Ministry of Children and Family Affairs(2004). Framework Plan for Day CareInstitutions - A Brief Presentation.Accessed at: http://odin.dep.no/bfd/engelsk/regelverk/rikspolitiske/004005-990083/index-dok000-b-n-a.html, 9th

September, 2004.

Ministry of Education (1996). Te WharikiEarly Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (1998). Quality inAction - Implementing the RevisedStatement of Desirable Objectives andPractices in New Zealand Early ChildhoodServices. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (2002). Pathways tothe Future: Ngä Huarahi Arataki.Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2003a). PitopitoKorero. Issue 32. Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/pk, 15th October,2004.

Ministry of Education (2003b). BetterBeginnings - Early Childhood Education inNew Zealand. Wellington:Communications Unit, Ministry ofEducation. Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=3192&goto=00, 9th

September, 2004.

Ministry of Education, Accessed at: http://www.ecd.govt.nz/running/profdev/profdev.

Bibliography

124

html, 15th July, 2004.

Ministry of Education, Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexID=8304&indexparentid=8303,March 15th, 2004.

Ministry of Education, Early ChildhoodEducation Equity Funding – Questionsand Answers. Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=6818&indexid=1038&indexparentid=1095#P23_645, 16th July, 2004.

Ministry of Education, Accessed at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=6819&indexid=1038&indexparentid=1095, August 10th, 2004.

Ministry of Education and Science (2000).Early Childhood Education and CarePolicy in Sweden. Paper produced for aWorkshop Presentation at the InternationalOECD Conference Lifelong Learning as anAffordable Investment, 6-8th December2000, Ottawa, Canada.

Ministry of Education and Science inSweden and National Agency for Education(2001). Curriculum for the Pre-school,Lpfo 98. Stockholm: Ministry of Educationand Science in Sweden and NationalAgency for Education.

Mitchell, L. (2001). Bulk Funding of NewZealand’s Early Childhood Services - AnAnalysis of the Impact. Wellington: NewZealand Council for Educational Research.

Mitchell, L. (2002). Differences betweenCommunity Owned and Privately OwnedEarly Childhood Education and CareCentres: A Review of Evidence. Wellington:New Zealand Council for EducationalResearch. Accessed at: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/11743.pdf, July 21st, 2004.

Mitchell, L. and Cubey, P. (2003).Characteristics of ProfessionalDevelopment Linked to EnhancedPedagogy and Children’s Learning inEarly Childhood Settings: Best Evidence

Synthesis. Wellington: Ministry ofEducation. Accessed at: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/default.php?cPath=127&products_id=120, July 21st, 2004.

Mitchell, L and Mara, D. (2001).Evaluation of Two ECD Services:Licensing and Chartering Advice andSupport; Advice and Support to LicenceExempt Playgroups. Wellington: NewZealand Council for Educational Research.

Mooney, A and Blackburn, T. (2003).Children’s Views on Childcare Quality.University of London: Thomas CoramResearch Unit.

Mooney, A. and Munton, A. (1997).Research and Policy in Early ChildhoodServices: Time for a New Agenda. London:Institute of Education.

Mooney, A. and Munton, A. (1998). Pre-school Education and Childcare inScotland – Setting the Scene. Accessed at:www.scotland.gov.uk/edru/Pdf/ers/preschoolres-chpt1.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Mooney, A., Cameron, C., Candappa, M.,McQuail, S., Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2003).Early Years and Childcare InternationalEvidence Project: Quality. London:Department for Education and Skills.

Mooney, A., Knight, A., Moss, P. and Owen,C. (2001). Who Cares? Childminding in the1990’s. London: Family Policies StudiesCentre.

Moss, P. (1994). “Defining Quality: Values,Stakeholders and Processes” (in) Moss, P.and Pence, A. (Eds.). Valuing Quality inEarly Childhood Services. NewApproaches to Defining Quality. London:Teachers’ College.

Moss, P. (2000). “Workforce Issues inEarly Childhood Education and Care”.Paper presented at consultative meeting onInternational Developments in EarlyChildhood Education and Care. TheInstitute for Child and Family Policy

Bibliography

125

Colombia University New York, 11-12thMay 2000.

Moss, P. (2001). “Beyond Early ChildhoodEducation and Care”. Paper presented inEarly Childhood Education and CareStockholm, 13 – 15 June 2001. Accessed at:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/14/2535274.pdf, May 15th, 2004.

Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1994). “Towards anInclusionary Approach in Defining Quality”(in) Moss, P. and Pence, A. (Eds.). ValuingQuality in Early Childhood Services. NewApproaches to Defining Quality. London:Teachers’ College.

Moss, P., Petrie, P., Cameron, C.,Candappa, M., McQuail, S. and Mooney, A.(2003). Early Years and ChildcareInternational Evidence Project: AnIntroduction to the Project. London: DfES.

Mosteller, F. (1995). “The Tennessee Studyof Class Size in the Early School Grades”(in) Future of Children, Volume 5, No. 2,pp. 113-127.

Munton, A., Mooney, A. and Rowland, L.(1995). “Deconstructing Quality: AConceptual Framework for the NewParadigm in Day Care Provision for theUnder Eights” (in) Early Child Developmentand Care, Volume 114, pp. 11 - 23.

Myers, R. (2000). Financing EarlyChildhood Education and Care Services.International Journal of EducationalResearch, Volume 33, No. 1, pp. 75-94.

National Childcare Accreditation CouncilInc., Accessed at: http://www.ncac.gov.au/quality_systems/quality_systems_index.html#whatarequalitysystems, 14th March,2004.

National Agency for Education (2003).Descriptive Data on Childcare, Schools andAdult Education in Sweden 2003 - Reportnumber 236. Stockholm: National Agencyfor Education.

National Association for the Education ofYoung Children, Accessed at: http://www.naeyc.org/, 1st July, 2004.

National Association for the Education ofYoung Children, Accessed at: http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/dap3.htm, 16th July, 2004.

NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit (2003).Evaluation of the Equal OpportunitiesChildcare Programme. Dublin: TheStationary Office.

New Zealand Childcare Association (2004).The Quality Register. Accessed at: http://www.nzchildcare.ac.nz/, July 21st, 2004.

New Zealand Council for EducationalResearch , Accessed at: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/default.php?cPath=76&products_id=88, 15th July, 2004.

New Zealand Government (Undated). Factsheet: Budget 2004 - Affordable, Accessibleand Quality Early Childhood Education.Accessed at: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/families/facts.cfm, 14th October, 2004.

NICHD Early Child Care ResearchNetwork (1996). “Characteristics ofInfant Child Care: FactorsContributing to Positive Caregiving”(in) Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, Volume 11, pp. 269-306.

NICHD Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. (2000). “Characteristics andQuality of Child Care for Toddlers andPreschoolers” (in) Applied DevelopmentalScience, Volume 4, pp. 116-135.

Northern Area Partnership (2002). Reviewof Day Care Services in Northern Healthand Social Services Board area 1999/2000- 2001/2002. Accessed at: http://www.northernchildcare.com/FIN43792%20DayCare%20TXT%20WEB.pdf, 14th October,2004.

Northern Childcare Partnership (2002).

Bibliography

126

Training Directory 2001 – 2002. Accessedat: http://www.northernchildcare.com/Training_Directory_2001_2002.pdf, 13th

July, 2004.

Northern Ireland Office, Accessed at:http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreement.htm, 14th March, 2004.

Oberhumeur, P. and Ulich, M. (1997).Working with Young Children in Europe.Provision and Staff Training. London: PaulChapman Publishing Limited.

OECD (1998a). Background Report fromNorway - Thematic Review of EarlyChildhood Education and Care Policy.Paris: OECD.

OECD (1998b). Background Report forPortugal - Early Childhood Education andCare Policy in Portugal. Paris: OECD.

OECD (1999a). Background Report forSweden - Early Childhood Education andCare Policy in Sweden. Prepared for theOECD Thematic Review. Paris: OECD

OECD (1999b). OECD Country Note, EarlyChildhood Education and Care Policy inNorway. Paris: OECD.

OECD (1999c). OECD Country Note, EarlyChildhood Education and Care Policy inSweden. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2000a). OECD Country Note, EarlyChildhood Education and Care Policy inPortugal. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2000b). Background Report for theUK Thematic Review of Early ChildhoodEducation and Care Policy. Paris: OECD

OECD (2001). Starting Strong: EarlyChildhood Education and Care. Paris:OECD

O’Kane, M. and Kernan, M. (2002). “AStudy of the Impact of the Child Care (Pre-school Services) Regulations (1996) on the

Quality of Early Childhood Services inIreland: The IEA Preprimary ProjectRevisited” (in) Horgan, M. and Douglas, F.(Eds.). Lessons for the 21st Century:Research, Reflection, Renewal.Proceedings of the OMEP Conference heldin the DIT, Saturday 20th April 2002, pp.344-357.

Orloff, A. (1993). “Gender and the SocialRights of Citizenship: The ComparativeAnalysis of Gender Relations and WelfareStates” (in) American Sociological Review,Volume 58, pp. 303-328.

Pascal, C. (n.d.). The Effective EarlyLearning Project: Achievements andReflections. Accessed at: http://www.ecdu.govt.nz/publications/convention/Pascal.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M.,Clifford, R., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan,S., Yazejian, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J., andZelazo, J. (1999). The Children of the Cost,Quality, and Outcomes Study go to School:Executive summary. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Frank Porter Graham Child DevelopmentCenter.

Pellegrini, A. and Blatchford, P. (2000).Children’s Interactions at School: Peersand Teachers. London: Edward Arnold.

Penn, H. (2000). “Where Should ChildrenLearn? Space and Segregation” (in) Penn,H. (Ed.) Early Childhood Services Theory,Policy and Practice. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Pestoff, V. and Strandbrink, P. (2002). ThePolitics of Swedish Childcare. FinalVersion of National Report, October 28th,2002. Accessed at: http://www.emes.net/files/Sweden-1-PT.doc, 15th October, 2004.

Petrie, P., Moss, P., Cameron, C.,Candappa, M., McQuail, S. and Mooney, A.(2003). Early Years and ChildcareInternational Evidence Project: Provision

Bibliography

127

of Services. London: DfES.

Pettinger, R. (1993). “Germany” inCochran, M. (Ed.). InternationalHandbook of Child Care Policies andPrograms. London: Greenwood Press.

Philipsen, L., Burchinal, M., Howes, C. andCryer, D. (1997). “The Prediction of ProcessQuality from Structural Features of ChildCare” (in) Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly Volume 12, No. 3, pp. 281-303.

Podmore, V. (2002). Home-Based EarlyChildhood Services: The Case of NewZealand. UNESCO Policy Briefs on EarlyChildhood. Accessed at:http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/ecf/pdf/brief6en.pdf, 15th October, 2004.

Podmore, V. and Carr, M.. (1999).“Learning and Teaching Stories: NewApproaches to Assessment and Evaluation.”Paper presented at the AARE – NZAREConference on Research in Education,Melbourne, 1st December, 1999.

Podmore, V. and May, H. with Mara, D.(1998). Evaluating Early ChildhoodProgrammes using the Strands and Goalsof Te Whäriki. Final Report on Phase Oneand Two to the Ministry of Education.Wellington: NZCER.

Podmore, V., Meade, A. with Hendricks, A.(2000). Aspects of Quality in EarlyChildhood Education. Wellington: NewZealand.

Prieto, H., Sahlstrom, F., Calander, F.,Karlsson, M. and Heikkila, M. (2002).“Together? On Childcare as a Meeting Placein a Swedish City” (in) ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research, Volume47, No. 1, pp. 43-62.

Rhedding-Jones, J. (2002). “QuestioningDiversity: Practices, Discourses and theEarly Childhood Education Profession.”Paper for presentation at AnnualConference of Australian Association forResearch in Education, Brisbane Australia,

December 1-5th, 2002.

Rutter, R. (1995). “Clinical Implications ofAttachment Concepts: Retrospect andProspect” (in) Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, Volume 36, No. 4, pp. 549-571.

Sainsbury, D. (1994). “Women’s and Men’sSocial Rights: Gendering Dimensions ofWelfare States” (in) Sainsbury, D. (Ed.).Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage.

Sakai, L., Whitebook, M., Wishard, A. andHowes, C. (2003). “Evaluating the EarlyChildhood Environment Rating Scale(ECERS): Assessing Differences betweenthe First and Revised Edition” (in) EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, Volume 18,No. 4, pp. 427-445.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford,. I., Taggart, B. and Elliot, K.(2002). “Measuring the Impact of Pre-school on Children’s Cognitive Progressover the Preschool Period” (in) TheEffective Provision of Preschool Education(EPPE) Project Technical Paper 8A.London: Institute of Education, Universityof London.

Sheridan, S. (1995). “Application of QualityRating in Pre-schools in CommunityDevelopment Work: The LerumCompetence Development Project”. Paperpresented at the 5th European Conferenceon the Quality of Early ChildhoodEducation, Paris, France.

Shonkoff, J. and Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000).From Neurons to Neighborhoods: TheScience of Early Childhood Development.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class andGender. London: Sage.

Skolverket (2000). Child Care in Sweden.Stockholm: Liber Distribution. Accessed at:www.skolverket.se/pdf/english/00-531.pdf,15th July, 2004.

Bibliography

128

Smith, A. (1996). The Quality of ChildcareCentres for Infants in New Zealand.Palmerstown North: New ZealandAssociation for Research in Education.

Smith, A. and Farquhar, S. (1994). “TheNew Zealand Experience of CharterDevelopment in Early Childhood Services”(in) Moss, P. and Pence, A. (Eds.). ValuingQuality in Early Childhood Services. NewApproaches to Defining Quality. London:Teachers’ College.

Southern Area Childcare Partnership(2002) Childcare Plan 2002 – 2005.Accessed at: http://www.southernchildcarepartnership.ni.org/filestore/documents/childcare_plan.pdf, July 21st, 2004.

Spiess, C., Buchel, F. and Wagner, G.(2003). Children’s School Placement inGermany: Does Kindergarten AttendanceMatter. Bonn: IZA Discussion Paper.

Statistics Norway (2003). Children inkindergartens. Final figures. StatisticsNorway. Accessed at: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/02/10/barnehager_en/ 2003, 16th July, 2004.

Sure Start, Accessed at: http://www.surestart.gov.uk, 1st July, 2004.

Swedish Institute (2001). FS 86 Childcarein Sweden Stockholm: Swedish Institute.Accessed at:www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_se/english/ factsheets/SI/SI_FS86k_Childcare_in_Sweden/fs86k.pdf, 15th July, 2004.

Swedish Ministry of Education and Science(2000). Fact Sheet A New System ofTeacher Education. Stockholm: SwedishMinistry of Education and Science.Accessed at: http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/sweden-bill-teachers-oth-enl-t03.pdf, 15th July, 2004.

Sylva, K. (Ed.), Siraj-Blatchford, I. andTaggart, B. (2003). Assessing Quality inthe Early Years: Early Childhood

Environmental Rating Scale Extension(ECERS-E): Four Curricular Subscales.Stoke-On-Trent: Trentham Books.

Tait, G. (2000). “Book Review -Beyond Quality in Early ChildhoodEducation and Care: Post-modernPerspectives.” Contemporary Issues inEarly Childhood, Volume 1, No. 2.

Taylor, A., Dunster, L. and Pollard, J.(1999). “….And this Helps me How? FamilyDay Care Providers Discuss Training” (in)Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Volume 14, No. 3, pp. 285-312.

Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrao, A., Palacious,J. and Gottfried, W. (1996). “Comparisonsof Observed Process Quality in EarlyChildcare and Education Programmes inFive Countries” (in) Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, Volume 11, pp. 447-475.

Tietze, W. (1987). “A Structural Model forthe Evaluation of Preschool Effects” (in)Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Volume 2, pp.133-153.

Tovey, H. and Share, P. (2000). ASociology of Ireland. Dublin: Gill andMacmillan.

United Nations (1989). United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child,Adopted by the United Nations GeneralAssembly, 20th November 1989. Geneva:United Nations.

United Nations, Accessed at:http://www.unhchr .ch/html/menu2/6/crc/doc/discussion.htm, 1st July, 2004.

University of Aveiro, Accessed at:http://www.ii.ua.pt/, 1st July, 2004.

Vandell, D. and Wolfe, B. (2000). ChildCare Quality: Does It Matter and Does ItNeed to be Improved? University ofWisconsin–Madison: Institute for Researchon Poverty. Accessed at: http://ecti.hbg.

Bibliography

129

psu.edu/docs/publication/vandell.pdf, 14th

July, 2004.

Vasconcelos, T (1996). “Planting the Fieldof Portuguese Pre-school Education: NewPolicies for Old Roots”. Paper presented atthe 6th European Early ChildhoodEducation Research AssociationConference, Lisbon, Portugal, September1st-4th, 1996.

Vasconcelos, T. (1997a). “Pre-schoolEducation in Portugal: Development,Innovation and Changes - A TrueMobilising Contract.” Paper presented at aSymposium in honour of Professor Spodek,9-10th Nov, 1997.

Vasconcelos, T. (1997b). “Pre-schoolEducation in Portugal: Development,Innovation and Changes - Will We be Ableto Cross the Bridge?” Paper presented atNAEYC Conference.

Vasconcelos, T. (1998). Early ChildhoodEducation in Portugal. Lisbon:Departamento da Educação Básica.

Vasconcelos, T. (2002). “Early ChildhoodEducation in Portugal. Policies andPractices” (in) Sollars, V. (Ed.). Curricula,Policies and Practices in Early ChildhoodEducation. Malta: P.E.G. Ltd.

Wall, K. (2000). Portugal. FamilyObserver: Luxembourg: Office for theOfficial Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

Wall, K. (2003). The Situation of Familiesin Portugal-2001. European Observatoryon the Social Situation, Demography, andFamily. Accessed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/index_en.html, 15th October, 2004.

Wall, K., São José, J. and Correia, S.(2001). WP2 Care Arrangements in SingleParent Families - National Report:Portugal SOCCARE Project Report 2.4.Written for European Commission 5th

Framework Programme Improving HumanPotential and Socio-Economic KnowledgeBase Key Action for Socio-EconomicResearch. Accessed at: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sospol/soccare/report2.4.pdf,July 21st, 2004.

Wangmann, J. (1992). “Standards for anAustralian Program Accreditation System:A Review of Program Evaluation Models”(in) Australian Journal of EarlyChildhood, Volume 17, No. 1, pp. 4-9.

Wangmann, J. (1995). TowardsIntegration and Quality Assurance inChildren’s Services. AIFS EarlyChildhood Study Paper No. 5.Melbourne: Australian Institute ofFamily Studies

Webb, J., Schirato, T. and Danaher, G.(2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London:Sage

White, V. (2001) “Worried about Leavingyour Children with Minders while youWork away from Home? You Should be”(in) The Irish Times, December 1st.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C. and Phillips, D.(1990). Who cares? Child Care Teachersand the Quality of Care in America

Whyle, C. (2000). Picking up the Pieces -Review of Special Education. Wellington:Ministry of Education. Accessed at:http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/dalziel/wylie_review.pdf, July 21st, 2004.

Williams, P. (1994). Making Sense ofQuality: A Review of Approaches toQuality in Early Childhood Services.London: National Children's Bureau.

Wise, S. and Sanson, A. (2003)."Partnership with Providers? Why parentsfrom Diverse Cultural Backgrounds ChooseFamily Day Care" (in) Mooney, A. andStatham, J. (2003). Family Day Care.International Perspectives on Policy,Practice and Quality. London: JessicaKingsley Publishers.

Bibliography

130

Woodhead, M. (1998). "'Quality' in EarlyChildhood Programmes - A Contextually-Appropriate Approach" (in) InternationalJournal of Early Years Education, Volume6. No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Wylie, C. (1996). Five Years Old andCompetent. Wellington: New ZealandCouncil for Educational Research.

Wylie, C. (2001). "Competent Children:Findings and Issues from the first 7 years."Paper for Ministry of Social Policy seminar,The Long Road to Knowledge:Longitudinal Research and Social Policy,April 6-7, 2001.