Getting beyond childcare and quality

Peter Moss

Thomas Coram Research Unit

Institute of Education University of London

Multifunctional servicesfor children 0 to 5

“The basic form of service [for children from birth to 5 and their families] should be through multi-purpose children’s centres offering part and full-time care with medical and other services to a very local catchment area” (Tizard, Moss and Perry, 1976)

Legacy of the 19th century

19th century – crèches for poor working families; – early education/ kindergartens for middle

class families

Split system of early childhood services – ‘childcare’ & ‘education’– 0-3 & 3+

Split system

• divided departmental responsibility

• divided structures: types of provision; workforce; funding; regulation etc. etc.

• different users and purposes

0-3 services: The ‘poor’ child & the ‘substitute’ mother

Changing understandings today

Of early childhood services • complement the home not a substitute • ‘multi-purpose’ for all children and familiesOf children from birth• the ‘rich child’, born with a hundred

languages, active subject, citizen with rightsOf the workforce• Co-constructors of knowledge; reflective

practitioners; researchers

The rich child

“Our image of the child is rich in potential, strong, powerful, competent and most of all connected to adults and other children”(Malaguzzi, 1993)

Beyond childcare to…integrated services

• for the whole child

• for the whole community

• for many purposes (care needs of working parents and gender equality, learning, family support, production of culture and values, social cohesion and solidarity….)

• multipurpose services for all children

Europe has concepts for integrated services

Concept of pedagogy

• theory+practice+profession

• care+education+’upbringing’ (erziehung)

“The pedagogue sets out to address the whole child, the child with body, mind, emotions, creativity, history and social identity. This is not the child only of emotions, the psychotherapeutical approach, nor only of the body, the medical approach, nor only of the mind, the traditional teaching approach”

European has concepts for integrated services

Concept of education in its broadest senseConcept of ‘children’s spaces’ “The concept of ‘children’s spaces’ understands

[services] as environments of many possibilities – cultural and social, but also economic, political, ethical, aesthetic, physical – some predetermined, others not, some initiated by adults, others by children” (Moss & Petrie, 2002)

Europe has examplesof integrated responsibility

In welfare:

• Denmark & Finland:

In education:

• Norway, England, Iceland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden…?Germany, Austria

Europe has examples of integrated services

• Sweden : preschools

• England: children’s centres

• Many more

Sweden An integrated early years service

• 1996: responsibility transferred from welfare to education

• All children entitled to a place from 12 months• 81% of 1-5s in services (2003)

– Under 1s = 0% (parental leave)– 1-2 = 45%– 2-3 = 87%– 3-5 = 86-97%

Sweden An integrated early years service

Common framework for 1-5 year olds:

– Preschool curriculum

– Funding (2% of GDP)

– Workforce – specialist teacher for 1-5s

– Preschool (förskola) = centre for children under and over 3

Sweden“Enrolling children from age 1 in full-day pre-schools

has become generally acceptable. What was once viewed as either a privilege of the wealthy for a few hours a day or an institution for needy children has become, after 70 years of political vision and policy making, an unquestionable right of children and families. Parents now expect a holistic pedagogy that includes health care, nurturing and education for their pre-schoolers” (Lenz Taguchi & Munkhammar (2003)

Preschool & school‘Strong and equal partnership’

“Announcing the transfer to education, the prime minister stated that ECEC should be the first step towards realising a vision of lifelong learning. He added that the pre-school should influence at least the early years of compulsory school…

… Initiatives taken since have sought to build closer links between pre-school, free-time services and school, treating all as equal parts of the education system.Development work is focusing on the integration of pre-school pedagogy into primary schools and creating pedagogical ‘meeting places’ between all three services” (Barbara Martin Korpi)

Re-forming the 0-18 workforce

• Rektors – director of a cluster of services, including schools…pre-school teacher or school teacher or free-time pedagogue

• 3 professions (pre-school teacher, school teacher, free-time pedagogue) & 3 trainings1 profession and 1 training=3½ year training – 18 months shared; 24 months specialised

EnglandDeveloping an integrated service

‘New children’s agenda’ • All services for children in education • All services share 5 outcomes:

– being healthy; – staying safe; – enjoying and achieving; – making a positive contribution; – economic well-being

EnglandDeveloping a new children’s agenda

• 2010 – all schools ‘extended schools’ offering range of services (‘childcare’; study and leisure facilities; parenting support etc)

• 2010 - Children’s Centre for 0-5s in every community = 3500 by 2010

EnglandDeveloping an integrated service

Children’s Centres provide range of services : • early education and childcare; • family support; • health services; • a base for family day carers; employment

advice; • support for other nearby services

Beyond childcare to integrated services

Conditions for integrated services

• One department responsible

• One funding system

• One workforce based on one profession

• One regulatory framework

• One image of the child, care, learning

• One set of coherent objectives

Quality Targets in Services for Young Children

Aim: to implement political objectives of 1992 EU Council Recommendation on Childcare

• Affordability• Access (urban/rural; special needs)• Care and a pedagogical approach• Close relations with parents and communities• Diversity, flexibility, choice• Coherence between services

Conditions to achieveobjectives

• Common policy framework• Coordination of responsibility for services• Curricular framework• Appropriate staffing and staff conditions• Appropriate physical environments• Infrastructure – planning, monitoring, support,

training, research• Adequate financing

Quality Targets

• Criteria for assessing progress in achieving objectives

• Targets achievable in all countries in 10 years• Provisional – not final targets• Method: discussion and negotiation by

European grouptargets vary in specificity• Inter-dependent – cannot choose some but not

others

Quality targets – beyond childcare

“The Network takes the view that from a service perspective it is neither necessary or desirable to treat (children with employed parents) separately from other children. The development of services for young children should be based on a policy that takes account of all children and carers and all their needs”

EC Childcare Network (1996)

“Quality Targets in Services for young Children”

40 targets in 9 blocks: • policy; finance; level and types of services;

education; ratios; staff employment and education; environment and health; parents and community; performance

Some examplesTarget 1: coherent statement of intent for care

and education services to young children 0-6Target 2: one department take responsibility for

implementing 0-6 policyTarget 7: public expenditure on services for

young children (0-6) not less than 1% of GDP

Target 16: all collective services for young children 0-6…should have coherent values and objectives including a stated and explicit educational philosophy

Target 25: all qualified staff employed in services [should be paid the equivalent of] teachers

Target 26: at least 60% staff should have basic training of at least 3 years at post-18 level (paid at teacher level)

Target 29: 20% of staff should be men

Quality Targets“Quality is a relative concept, based on values

and beliefsDefining quality is a process…[It] should be

participatory and democratic involving different groups…

The needs, perspectives and values of these groups may sometimes differ

Defining quality is a dynamic and continuous process…never reaching a final, ‘objective’ statement”

Beyond quality

‘Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care – Postmodern Perspectives’

‘Oltre la qualità nell’educazione e cura della prima infanzia: I linguaggi dell valutazione’

Quality as one of the languages of evaluation… one possibility

The language of quality

‘Quality’ is one way of thinking about evaluation and what we want - based on:

• universal norms defined and applied by experts (structure, process, outcome)

• values and assumptions: universality (beyond context), objectivity, indisputable knowledge, certainty, closure

• managerialism

The language of quality

• Own tools and methods, e.g: – rating scales– external inspectors…

• Quality is a language of evaluation that– assesses conformity to norms– treats evaluation as a technical practice– values objectivity, certainty, closure– offers a statement of fact

The language of meaning making

‘Meaning making’ is an other way of thinking about evaluation and what we want - based on:

• constructing meaning and judgement of value in relation with others and to critical questions

• values and assumptions: subjectivity, complexity and multiple perspectives, context, provisionality

• democratic participation

Language of meaning making

• Own tools and methods, e.g. – pedagogical documentation

• ‘Meaning making’ is a language of evaluation that:– interprets practice and judges value– treats evaluation as political and ethical practice– values subjectivity, uncertainty, provisionality– offers a judgement of value

Pedagogical documentation• the creation of diverse documents that make

practice visible (e.g. written notes, observation charts, diaries, and other narrative forms, recordings, photographs, slides, and video)

• visible practice discussed, reflected upon, interpreted, evaluated by children, parents, practitioners, politicians and others

Beyond childcare and quality

• We have choices

• We can go beyond ‘childcare’ ‘children’s centres’

• We can go beyond ‘quality’ ‘meaning making’

• Opening to change is difficult: long-term commitment; different values; critical thinking and border crossing; tools and support