Transcript No Slide Title

Getting beyond
childcare and quality
Peter Moss
Thomas Coram Research Unit
Institute of Education University of London
Multifunctional services
for 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 families
Of children from birth
• the ‘rich child’, born with a hundred
languages, active subject, citizen with rights
Of 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 sense
Concept 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 examples
of 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
trainings1 profession and 1
training=3½ year training – 18 months
shared; 24 months specialised
England
Developing 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
England
Developing 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
England
Developing 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 achieve
objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 grouptargets 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 examples
Target 1: coherent statement of intent for care
and education services to young children 0-6
Target 2: one department take responsibility for
implementing 0-6 policy
Target 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 beliefs
Defining 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