Early Childhood Education and Change in Diverse Cultural Contexts

Chris Pascal, Tony Bertram, Marika Veisson, Chris Pascal, Tony Bertram, Marika Veisson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351400787
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación infantil

Change is now a dominant feature of early childhood systems around the globe and many countries are currently facing significant economic, social and political developments that bring additional challenges that teaching and learning practices need to be able to respond to in a positive and effective way. Early Childhood Education and Change in Diverse Cultural Contexts examines how the educational systems in different countries respond to this change agenda, what they prioritise and how they deal with the adjustment process.

Based on original and cutting-edge research and drawing upon diverse theoretical approaches, the book analyses new policies and pedagogical practices in a wide range of different cultural contexts. With contributions from Great Britain, the USA, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, New Zealand, South Africa and Singapore, this volume examines how educators might be able to innovate and respond positively to the shifting social and cultural situations in these contexts and others like them. Focusing on early childhood policy, professionalism and pedagogy, the book stimulates debate and dialogue about how the field is moving forward in the 21st century.

Early Childhood Education and Change in Diverse Cultural Contexts should be essential reading for academics, researchers and postgraduate students engaged in the study of early childhood education, childhood studies and comparative education. Providing practical examples of how educational systems and educators might respond to change imperatives, the book should also be of great interest to teacher educators, current and pre-service teachers and policymakers around the world.

Section 1

Policy

Chapter 2

Innovative policies for ECE provision in eight countries

Findings from the IEA early childhood education study

Chris Pascal and Tony Bertram

Introduction

At a time of rapid social and economic change worldwide, governments are increasingly recognizing that early childhood policy provides a fertile arena for executing wider social, economic, political and educational ambitions. A number of important cross-national studies (Eurydice, 2014; OECD, 2012b; 2015; Pascal et al., 2012; Pascal & Bertram, 2016; Watson, 2012) have revealed that many countries have, or are developing, a funded, government-led, early childhood education (ECE) policy with stated aims and intentions. Research indicates an emerging consensus that broad policy aims and strategies for ECE should be set by government policy to stimulate further development and improvement of ECE systems (Eurydice, 2014; OECD, 2012b; Pascal & Bertram, 2016; Watson, 2012). Today, many governments see ECE as a public investment with huge returns and are making considerable effort to support the development of ECE as an effective tool to help children build a strong foundation for school and life success and, therefore, better life chances, especially for children from disadvantaged and migrant backgrounds and children with special needs or disabilities. However, despite shared policy intentions, these recent studies also reveal that countries are at very different stages of policy development and implementation and may have adopted different strategies to achieve the shared goal of an affordable, accessible and effective ECE system.

This chapter draws on the evidence gathered by the IEA International Early Childhood Education Study (ECES), which was a comparative research program of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) undertaken from 2015–2016 (Pascal & Bertram, 2016). The purpose of the study was to explore, describe and critically analyse early childhood education (ECE) provision and its role in preparing children for the learning and social demands of school and wider society. In this program, ECE was defined as formal early education and care provision for young children from birth up to the age of primary education. A key element of this study was a detailed analysis of ECE policies and systems in the participating countries.

As countries worldwide continue to work at ECE system development and policy options continue to be debated, the need to document and evaluate alternative systems, policy choices and their consequences has become more important. This chapter aims to contribute to this reflective and evaluative process, providing evidence about in-country and between-country variations in ECE policy and documenting key policy changes underway and planned. It aims to offer a critical reflection on the key policy issues and questions that flow from the policy initiatives in the eight ECES countries and to set an agenda for all policy makers to consider as they continue to move their ECE systems forward.

Definition of early childhood education (ECE) programs

In the context of this study, ECE was been defined as formal early education and care provision for young children from birth up to the age of primary education. This period is defined under the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) system as ISCED Level 0 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012). ISCED Level 0 can be further divided into early childhood educational development programs (ECED) (ISCED Level 0.1) and programs in pre-primary education (PPE) (ISCED Level 0.2).

While ECED programs are designed for younger children usually in the age range birth to 3 years, PPE programs are aimed for children usually from age three years to the start of primary education (ISCED Level 1). In some education systems, the pre-primary education programs may take place during the first stage or cycle of compulsory education and may be located in a primary school. For example, Kindergarten in the US is typically thought of as the beginning of primary schooling, but is included in ISCED level 0. If programs fulfil the criteria for ISCED Level 0, they are covered in this study.

In some countries, pre-primary programs may be located in a primary school and might be linked to ISCED Level 1, while in other countries, these years before entry to primary schooling are not part of the educational system. In addition, ECE is often viewed as noncompulsory and can be more locally determined, thus being subject to much more variation in its structures and systems internationally than schooling systems. ECE is also more likely to be devolved to nongovernment bodies, such as religious charities and other private, voluntary and independent providers.

In summary, the study included:

1. 1 public, private and voluntary ECE provision for children in ISCED Level 0 that falls within a national regulatory framework, i.e. has to comply with a set of rules, minimum standards and/or undergo accreditation procedures;
2. 2 publicly subsidized and non-subsidized private and voluntary provision;
3. 3 the most common types of ECE provision.

The study did not cover:

1. 1 unregulated home-based provision;
2. 2 settings that operate before or after the main ECE provision, e.g. breakfast clubs, after school clubs and holiday programs;
3. 3 “specialist” provision, e.g. programs integrated into hospitals, orphanages or other such institutions;
4. 4 pilot or experimental ECE provision.

Participating countries and methodology

Eight countries participated in the ECES and submitted data on their ECE policy for analysis and interpretation: namely, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and the United States. It should be noted that the eight participating countries opted into the study and so cannot be viewed as a representative or purposefully selected sample of country types. Nevertheless, they do provide interesting illustrations of ECE policy in action in a range of diverse contexts.

Data for the policy report was gathered using an online policy questionnaire completed by a National Research Coordinator (NRC) in each country. The questionnaire collected basic information about the wider policy context for ECE from birth to the age of primary schooling and policy strategies in each participating country. The analysis of the survey data enabled transnational comparisons in policy and documented key policy changes underway and planned.

Data were collected primarily at a national (country) level but, in questions where there was a need for subnational variations to be acknowledged, data were recorded at either national and/or subnational (state or regional) level. The policy questionnaire was completed using official documents (recognized by central/government level authorities) as the primary source of information, and also drew on the expertise of ECE specialists and educators as required. The information provided was the most recent available at the time of the study, and where possible referred to the period 2013/2014.

In this chapter, data generated by three key policy questions are analysed and an overview is provided of key policy questions and issues facing countries who are developing their early childhood systems.

• What are the policy aims for ECE systems?
• What are the key features of ECE systems?
• What key changes are underway or planned in ECE?

Structure of ECE systems

The ECES focused on eight countries that participated in an iterative development and review process to create and evaluate the data analysed in this chapter. It should be noted that, although all of the participating countries continue to further develop their ECE provision and have their own systemic approach to delivering these services, each country was also subject to global demands and developments in ECE, which were impacting on their direction of policy travel. This diverse and dynamic context led to a complexity in the structures and systems for ECE in many countries. To set the policy analysis presented in this chapter into context, it is important first to understand the basic structure of the ECE system in each of the participating countries at the time of the study.

Based on the definition of ECE provision as outlined previously and the further distinction into two levels, there are two basic ECE structures:

• a split phase structure, in which provision is delivered in separate settings for younger and older children; and
• a unitary system, where younger and older children are catered for in integrated settings.

In split phase systems, there is a divide between “child care” and “early education,” with the early levels being more care and development oriented and the later levels being increasingly oriented towards education. Sometimes, an increased emphasis on preparing children for the transition to primary schooling can be found during the final year of PPE programs.

In unitary systems, provision is organized as an integrated offer catering for the whole age phase. Priorities on care and education are more balanced and there are no structural transfers between settings until the children start primary school.

Seven of the eight participating countries had a split ECE system, with either two or sometimes three levels, depending on the age of the children. Estonia was the only country of the eight participating countries with a fully unitary system of education and care for children from birth to primary school entry. The Czech Republic, Italy and Poland had a clear distinction between provision for children aged under three years (ECED) and provision for children from three years to the start of primary education (PPE). Chile had three levels of ECE provision based on the age of the children: a Nursery level for children from birth to 2 years, a Middle level for children aged two to four years, and a Transition level for children aged four to six years. Denmark, the Russian Federation and the United States also offered a form of unitary provision for children from birth till school entry, where settings cater for the whole ISCED Level 0 age range in one setting, and these ran in parallel to their split system and extend the system structure options. All study countries reported that there was also regulated and unregulated home-based provision throughout the age phase.

The year before entry to primary school (ISCED Level 1) was of particular interest in this study and structurally this year is the final year of ISCED Level 0. In all countries, ECED provision and most of the PPE programs were noncompulsory. However, the final year of PPE provision was compulsory in Chile and Poland. In Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Poland and the Russian Federation, access to PPE in the year before entry to primary schooling was viewed as a universal entitlement. In Italy, it was reported that universal access was promoted, although children might not have the right to a place. It was noncompulsory in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United States. In Poland, it was compulsory in the final year before transfer to ISCED Level 1. In the United States, it was also compulsory; however, in 45 states and the District of Columbia (DC), school districts were required to provide education (i.e. kindergarten programs) in the final year of ISCED Level 0. The age of the child during this final year before transfer to primary school varied, with it being 5 to 6 years of age in Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy and the United States. In Estonia and Poland, the age of the children in this year was six to seven years, and, in the Russian Federation, it could be at any time between the ages of six-and-a-half years to eight years, according to the school readiness of the child. It should be noted that, as from the school year 2004/2005, all 6-year-old children in Poland attended a nursery school (przedszkole) or preschool class (oddziały przedszkolne) located in primary schools, as the School Education Act introduced a one-year obligatory preschool preparation; this requirement now applies to 5-year-old children.

In all eight of the study countries, this final year of ISCED Level 0 was under the auspices of the Ministry/Department of Education and was usually sited in a form of nursery school or preschool (Kindergarten or Second Transition Level in Chile; Materska Skol in the Czech Republic; Aldersintegrerede Institutioner or Bornehaver in Denmark; Koolioelne Lasteasutus in Estonia; Schola dell’Infanzia in Italy; Oddzialy Przedszkolne in Poland; Kindergarten in the United States). In the Russian Federation, this final year could be home-based, centre-based, or on primary school sites, all of which were officially approved to offer the pre-primary year.

The number of years covered by the ISCED Level 0 age phase varied between the participating countries. It ranged from six years in Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Poland and the United States to up to seven years in Estonia and the Russian Federation. This provided ECE (ISCED Level 0) with a potentially longer time span of a child’s life to cover than any other ISCED-defined phase in the educational system, indicating the significance of this phase of policy for governments in terms of potential impact.

In the countries offering a split system, ECED provision usually covered the first three years of life and PPE covered the adjacent years until the age of transfer to primary schooling. Chile was an exception to this as each of Chile’s three ECE phases covered shorter time spans. In the participating countries offering a unitary system, the provision could cover up to seven years.

Depending on each country’s ECE system, the number of system transition points varied as children progressed through the ECE (ISCED Level 0) system to primary schooling (ISCED Level 1). In countries with a unitary ECE system (Estonia), the child could encounter as few as two transition points (entry from home to the ECE provision and the transfer from ECE provision to primary schooling). The United States system varied, with children encountering as few as two transition points, but in some cases many more.

In countries with a split ECE system, there could be either three or four transition points, depending on the number of stages in ISCED Level 0. The Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, and the Russian Federation had three transition points: entry from home to ECED provision; transfer from ECED to PPE provision; and transfer from PPE provision to primary schooling. In Chile, four system transition points were possible: entry from home to first ISCED Level 0 provision; transfer from first ISCED Level 0 to second ISCED Level 0 provision; transfer from second ISCED Level 0 to third ISCED Level 0 (pre-primary) provision; and transfer from third ISCED Level 0 to ISCED Level 1 (primary schooling).

Besides these transition points provided by the structure of an ECE system, a child could encounter additional transition experiences if they changed setting or attend multiple settings within an age phase. Systemic structures that create multiple settings at each age phase could also mean that, in a single day, a child could experience different physical environments, behavior regimes, friendship groups, curricula and pedagogies. The evidence from the participating countries revealed that many young children in these countries experienced multiple system transitions during their first six to seven years of life, and this pattern was very different to children at later stages in the education system where entry to primary or secondary schooling tended to mean entry to one setting for the duration of that age phase.

Enrollment of children in early education and care services in each age phase varied significantly between the study countries, and also changed significantly within countries as the children moved from phase to phase. For children under three years (ECED), the highest enrollment rate was found in Denmark (67%) and the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword to EECERA research monographs
• Introduction
• Section 1 Policy
• Section 2 Professionalism and the workforce
• Section 3 Curriculum and pedagogy
• List of Contributors
• Index