Presentation of Starting Strong IV by Montserrat Gomendio, OECD
-
Upload
eduskills-oecd -
Category
Education
-
view
17.837 -
download
1
Transcript of Presentation of Starting Strong IV by Montserrat Gomendio, OECD
STARTING STRONG IV Monitoring quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Montserrat Gomendio Deputy Director Directorate for Education and Skills OECD
• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?
Today’s focus
• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?
Today’s focus
Early years are pivotal for child development
Source: Council for Early Childhood Development, 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bel
gium
Fran
ce
Nor
way
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Swed
en
Ital
y
Ger
man
y*
New
Zea
land
Kor
ea
Slov
enia
Net
herl
ands
Port
ugal
Japa
n
Luxe
mbo
urg
OE
CD
ave
rage
*
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Finl
and
Chi
le
Irel
and
Mex
ico
Aus
tral
ia
2012 2005%
Enrolment rates in early childhood education at age 3 (2005 and 2012)
Note: For Germany, the year of reference is 2006, rather than 2005. The graph only shows countries covered by the OECD Network on ECEC’s “Online Survey on Monitoring Quality in Early Learning and Development”. The OECD average refers to all OECD member countries.
Enrolment from age 3 is on the rise in OECD countries (2012)
Jurisdiction Starting age of
compulsory school
Age of children
Entitlement to a place in ECEC
Entitlement to free access
Legal access entitlement
Hours/week Free access entitlement
Hours/week
Belgium-Flemish Community
6 2.5-5 universal 23.33 unconditional 23.33
Belgium-French Community
6 0-2.5 none m conditional m
2.5-5 universal 28 unconditional 28
Czech Republic 6 5 universal 50 unconditional ≥40 France
6
0-2 none a conditional 40 3-5 universal 24 unconditional 24
Italy 6 3-5 universal 40 unconditional 40 Luxembourg
4 0-3 none a conditional 3 3-5 universal 26 unconditional ≤26
Netherlands 5 0-4 none a targeted 10 Norway 6 1-5 universal 41 none a Slovenia 6 11 months-5
years universal 45 conditional 45
Sweden
7 1-2 universal 15-50 none a 3-6 universal 15-50 unconditional 15
UK-England
5
2 none a conditional 15 3-4 none a unconditional 15
UK-Scotland 5 3-4 universal 16 unconditional 12.5
Increasingly extensive legal entitlements to ECEC
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Den
mar
k1
Icel
and
Spai
n
Latv
ia
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Slov
enia
1
Luxe
mbo
urg
Chi
le
Swed
en
Pola
nd
Fran
ce
Isra
el1
Arge
ntin
a
Belg
ium
Mex
ico
New
Zea
land
Aust
ria1
Ger
man
y
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Nor
way
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Col
ombi
a
Italy
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Uni
ted
Sta
tes1
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Esto
nia
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Kore
a
Japa
n
Aust
ralia
Hun
gary
1
Braz
il1
Portu
gal
Switz
erla
nd
Private expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP Public expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP
Total% of GDP
Elevated expenditure on early childhood educational institutions (2011)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Belgium-Flemish Community -Pre-primary educationBelgium-Flemish Community -Day-care centres
Belgium-Flemish Community -Family day-care providers
France -Pre-primary schoolFrance -Community crèches
France -Discovery garden
Germany -Child day-care centres
Italy -Pre-primary school
Japan -Nursery centresJapan -Kindergarten
Kazakhstan -All public ECEC settings
Korea -Childcare centreKorea -Kindergarten
Luxembourg -Early childhood education programmeLuxembourg -Compulsory preschool education
Luxembourg -Day-care familiesLuxembourg -Day-care centres
Mexico -Federal home-based early education for 0-3 year-olds (CONAFE)Mexico -Federal centre-based ECEC for 0-6 year-olds of state workers (ISSSTE)
Mexico -Public child development centres for 0-5 year-olds (CENDI)Mexico -Mandatory preschool
Netherlands -ChildmindingNetherlands -Childcare
Netherlands -Childcare for children of disadvantaged backgrounds
New Zealand -Māori language nestNew Zealand -Kindergarten
New Zealand -PlaycentreNew Zealand -Education and care
New Zealand -Home-based
Norway -Kindergarten, family kindergarten
Slovak Republic -Kindergarten
Slovenia -Kindergarten (integrated ECEC setting for 1-5 year-olds)Slovenia -Childminding of preschool children
Sweden -Preschool classSweden -Preschool
State (central, regional, local levels) Parents Other
Share of cost to parents and state of ECEC
BE
FR
DE IT
JP
SI
SE
KZ KR
LU
MX
NL
NZ
NO SK
Mainly monitored to i) enhance the level of quality in settings; ii) inform policy makers and the general public about the state of
ECEC in their country
Purposes of monitoring service quality
0 10 20 30
Accountability purposes without explicit sanction or reward
Identifying learning needs for children
Identifying learning needs for staff
Improving staff performance
Enhancing child development
Accountability purposes with explicit sanction or reward
Informing general public
Informing policy making
Improving level of service quality
Number of times cited by jurisdictions
Child development is less frequently monitored to inform policy making, the public, and for accountability purposes, but rather to
enhance child development (16/21), identify learning needs of children (16/21), and improving the level of service quality (15/21)
Purposes of monitoring child development
0 5 10 15 20
Accountability purpose, with sanctions/ rewards
Accountability purpose, without sanctions/ rewards
Informing general public
Identifying learning needs for staff
Informing policy making
Improving staff performance
Improving level of service quality
Enhancing child development
Identifying learning needs for children
Number of jurisdictions
• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?
Today’s focus
• Funding of monitoring systems mostly public, sourced from different levels of government
• Monitoring quality is mostly done by public institutions or agencies such as ministries of education or inspectorates
• In decentralised systems, local authorities play a key role in monitoring
• Most commonly monitored are service quality and staff quality – child outcomes less frequently
• Areas of monitoring are often integrated: Monitoring service quality, staff quality and child outcomes are usually not monitored independently
Governance and funding
• Wide differences in approaches to monitoring and which tools are used
• Structural aspects/ regulation compliance: most frequently monitored…but increasing attention to monitoring process quality
• External assessors usually receive comprehensive training, while internal assessors not always in all aspects of their monitoring tasks
• Countries are increasingly applying a common approach to monitoring across different types of ECEC provision (e.g. via a framework)
• The results of monitoring quality, especially service quality, increasingly available to the public
Evaluators and approaches
• Inspections (24/24) and self-evaluations (19/24) are most common, parental surveys less popular (15/24)
• Frequency of monitoring service quality internally or externally is not regulated in most countries – usually depends on last monitoring result
• Service quality results have to be made public in most countries (16), although in some countries only general or aggregated results are shared rather than the results of individual settings
Implementation of monitoring service quality
Inspections focus largely on regulatory aspects, such as staff-child ratios, safety regulations, minimum staff qualifications,
health and hygiene regulations, and minimum standards for space
Aspects of service quality monitored through inspections
0 5 10 15 20 25
Working conditionsHuman resource management
Financial resource managementImplementation of a curriculum
Planning of work/ staffLearning and play material in use
Indoor/ outdoor spaceStaff-child ratios
Health and/or hygiene regulationsMinimum staff qualifications
Safety regulations
Number of jurisdictions that monitor the aspects
Service quality aspects inspected in child care and nursery settings (or integrated settings for countries with an integrated system)
Frequency usually depends
on last monitoring
result
Inspections use various tools: • Observations, interviews and analysis of
internal documentation are used in inspections by 87,5% of jurisdictions
• Checklists and results of self-evaluations are fairly often used (by two-thirds)
• Rating scales and survey results, conducted by evaluators, staff/management or parents, are less popular
Tools for monitoring service quality through inspections
Self-evaluations feed into inspections, but especially seek to foster quality : • Self-reported surveys, self-reflection reports
or journals, and checklists are often used (by 12/19)
• A little less than half use portfolios (8/19) • Video feedback not often used (3/19)
Monitoring service quality through self-evaluations
Curriculum implementation, staff-child interactions and the quality of teaching are the key areas countries monitor with regard to process quality across different types of settings.
Areas of process quality monitored
0 5 10 15 20
Sensitivity (warmth, attentiveness, etc.)
Age-appropriateness of practices
Collaboration between staff and parents
Responsiveness to children’s individual needs
Collaboration between colleagues (staff)
Pedagogy
Overall quality of teaching/ instruction/ caring
Relationships and interactions between staff and children
Implementation of curriculum
Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)
Process quality aspects monitored in pre-primary education (or integrated settings)
• Direct assessments are done through testing (in 9/21 jurisdictions) or screening (9/21)
• Narrative assessments consist of storytelling practices (11/21) or portfolios (14/21)
• Observations make most commonly use of checklists (17/21) and rating scales (12/21)
• Monitoring children’s views when assessing child development has become a more widespread practice (11/21)
Varied tools used for monitoring child development
Direct assessments are mostly applied to testing language and literacy, while observations and narrative assessments tend to
focus on a broader range of skills
Areas of child development monitored
0 5 10 15 20
ICT skillsScience
Practical skillsHealth development, e.g., overweight
Well-beingCreative skills
AutonomyNumeracy skills
Language and literacy skillsSocio-emotional skills
Motor skills
Observations and narrative assessments Direct assessments
Number of jurisdictions
Most common consequence of monitoring results is: i) centre or staff must take measures to address shortcomings; ii) follow-up inspections or other monitoring practices, or in extreme cases;
iii) close-down or denied renewal of license to operate
Consequences of monitoring service quality
0 5 10 15 20
Competitive advantages in comparison with other services
Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions
Funding consequences: additional funding
Funding consequences: cuts in funding
Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training
Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license to operate
Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices
Take measures to address shortcomings
Number of jurisdictions
It is common that settings/staff have to address their shortcomings after a staff monitoring practice, comply with
follow-up monitoring exercises, and that staff/management should take up on training
Monitoring staff quality - consequences
0 5 10 15 20 25
Additional funding
Competitive advantages in comparison with other services
Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions
Cuts in funding
Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training
Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license tooperate
Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices
Take measures to address shortcomings
Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)
Consequences of monitoring early childhood education and care staff
• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?
Today’s focus
• Defining and establishing a complete picture of quality:
- Setting out clear and comprehensive quality goals - Gathering input from parents - Monitoring children’s views • Ensuring a coherent monitoring system: - Developing national standards or regulations - Developing a central monitoring framework - Standardising monitoring tools • Monitoring to inform policy reform: - Collecting data that can inform policies and strategies - Providing training to underperforming settings or staff
General challenges in monitoring service quality
• Creating an accurate and complete picture of child development:
- Using multiple instruments - Continuous assessment of child development • Recognising children’s individual development: - Tailoring monitoring to the individual child - Using developmentally appropriate tools
Challenges in monitoring child development
1. Balance the purposes for monitoring 2. Highlight good practice to promote understanding of what quality
entails 3. Develop a coherent monitoring framework for different settings 4. Consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of delegating
to local authorities the responsibility of monitoring quality 5. Design a monitoring system to inform policy and the general
public 6. Link monitoring of staff quality to professional development 7. Do not underestimate the demands that monitoring places on staff 8. Value the voices of staff, parents and children 9. Use continuous monitoring for teaching and learning strategies
that support child development.
Lessons learnt in monitoring quality in ECEC
Contact: OECD ECEC team ([email protected])
www.oecd.org/edu/earlychildhood
Thank you for your attention